quote:

---

Card's newest column, as of Oct. 29, shows him at his worst

---

quote:

---

"We live in a one party system masquerading as a two party system - where your choice is between conservative and... ultra-conservative"

---

quote:

---

SUCH IS THE DICHOTOMY OF CARD!!

---

SO SAYS BARON VON DOOM PELEGIUS, AND SO SHALL IT BE!


 

---

Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by antichris:
I'm gonna have to side with Jello Biafra on this one:

"We live in a one party system masquerading as a two party system - where your choice is between conservative and... ultra-conservative"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by antichris:
I'm gonna have to side with Jello Biafra on this one:

"We live in a one party system masquerading as a two party system - where your choice is between conservative and... ultra-conservative"

---

quote:

---

Card's newest column, as of Oct. 29, shows him at his worst, praising a book entitled "The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy." In fairness, I have not read it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pelegius:
Reading books by the U.S. right is pointless. They all say the same things about how terribly persecuted they are, only controlling all three government branches, and how evil liberals hate America. Most a racists, OSC thankfully is not, all are militaristic. All believe in things that would embarrass even the most conservative European.

Note: reading books by the U.S. left is pointless. They all say the same things about how terribly persecuted they are (although, in fairness, they are pretty persecuted.)

---

You might try reading political books some time. It shouldn't take much to change that opinion, since few books fit those descriptions.

[ October 30, 2005, 11:46 PM: Message edited by: Will B ]
 

---

Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
 
I have. I am constantly sick of the fact that my country has only one party of any worth (the Greens) and that they are marginal. Germany has the Social Democrats and the CDU and CSU and the Greens, all of which are better than either the Republicans or the Democrats.
 

---

Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
 
I think that you have a stunning gift to see other people's sides of the issues. Very impressive. I can't for the life of me see how anyone would consider you biased.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 

 

---

Posted by texico (Member # 8670) on :
 
I haven't read the book, but I thought the worst of the last revue, was the comments about the airlines. I found it especially interesting that OSC condemns Al Franken for not knowing history, but makes comments about low cost airlines cherry picking routes that make it clear he at least doesn't know that history. The largest low cost airline and the largest domestic carrier is Southwest Airlines. They started out on short hauls and flying where others wouldn't go or would gouge. In fact the originally business plan was to compete with busses, not other airlines. Personally I would rather fly them than many of the full fare airlines because they deliver everything they promise. In fact I would say they under promise and over deliver compared to competing lines.
 

---

Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
 
Southwest was a regional. When they went national, they cherry-picked.

Pelegius, you haven't read Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. You don't know what you're talking about. It's baffling that you judge that I'm at my worst, when you haven't even bothered to check.

I expected VLWC to be biased; I was surprised that it was as calm and rational as it was, and as well documented. Isn't it just as possible that the Economist reviewer was reviewing the book he expected to see, rather than the book that was there?

I've read the wacko conspiracy books, or rather, read AT them, and when I bother to review them, I shred them - Left and Right.

But your way, Pelegius, is so much simpler. Condemn somebody else for being pleasantly surprised by a book YOU haven't read....

So easy to come on my website and attack me ... too much trouble to find out if I'm wrong first. Are you like this at parties, too? Loudly condemn the punch even before you've tasted it?
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
I would think so.

Punch is awful.
 

---

Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
 
Please, a little respect. I rather like punch.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Then I would think you'd be happy I don't. More for you, neh?
 

---

Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
 
There's nothing worse than Mormon Punch. Who got the idea to add 7-up to Kool-aid? All the yucky feeling of spiked punch without getting drunk enough to ignore the taste.
 

---

Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
 
Kool-aid is the true cause of global warning. I am convinced of it. I am starting a revolutionary society to topple the Kool-aid companies. Join me and fight for the lives of your fellow men before it is too late!
 

---

Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
 
Interesting. People can come on here and write about me with utter contempt, and hardly anyone calls them on it. But let me respond, and immediately the "peacekeepers" on Hatrack change the subject and bury the topic.

I guess the message is that you can use Card's website to speak of Card as if he were someone's idiot child, without even the ordinary concern that you know what you're talking about first. No one protests this. But let Card call you on it, and suddenly THIS must be prevented at all costs.

There are plenty of places on the web to vilify me to your heart's content. What special pleasure is there about doing it here on my own site? And why am I forbidden to answer the attacks?

I've checked. This doesn't happen on ANY other author's website.

Thank heaven for those sites where I'm repeatedly called a fascist and worse. Otherwise I'd get confused and think I was tolerant to the point of madness.

So even though it will be overwhelmed by "punch" posts, let me, just for the record, point out the obvious: Those of you who actually like my novels might make some connection between what feels important and true in those books and my lifetime of reading and research. Maybe, after all that study and those thousands of books and the many hours of analysis, I actually know a few things, here and there, about human behavior and history. And therefore, just maybe, my ideas on other subjects might be worth THINKING ABOUT for a couple of seconds before spitting on them, on the remote chance I might not be an utter fool. And maybe, even if you disagree with me, you could write about my ideas on my own website with ordinary human respect instead of the condescension that began this thread and which permeates it.

Of course, the very fact that I have to ask for respect is probably a clear indication that I don't deserve it and am never going to get it here.

[ November 01, 2005, 02:14 AM: Message edited by: Orson Scott Card ]
 

---

Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
Mr. Card, you could not possibly know how many people like me frequent this site.

Well, maybe if you checked a sitemeter or something.

I have maybe four posts, but I've been reading here for years. I check for your articles several times a week even though I know you write them weekly. Every now and then, a new article pops up out of the regular scheme, and I giggle like a schoolgirl and count my good fortune.

I also read these forums, though I don't post. And though I enjoy reading thoughtful insights by many of your posters, if this were not the Hatrack River Forum, and Orson Scott Card were not an actual honest to God poster here, I simply wouldn't check back. For quite a long time, I didn't, because you weren't.

I think it's absolutely awesome that yours is the ONLY author's website where people come to frequently trash the author. Anne Rice recently attacked negative Amazon reviewers of her latest book... on Amazon. You put up with negative reviewers on your own bloody site. That's incredibly admirable.

I don't always agree with you (heck, I don't know that I even usually agree with you), but I think you are one of the most thought-provoking columnists I've ever read, and I have never felt that my disagreement was due to a lack of knowledge on your part (typically it's a difference in principles).

I pray near every day that I could one day be as insightful as you, that I could write with such truth. Being as successful as you couldn't hurt either.

Now I'm coming very close to deleting this. But I've always wanted to send you some email or message of how incredibly grateful I am that you do what you do, it just seemed to presumptuous to bother you with my thoughts. But if you can spare the time to read an attack, it seems you ought to be able to read some compliments too. So here it shall stay.

If it weren't for the fact that to send you an email I need to send it to the Help Desk or some such thing first, I would've sent you all this (and several more pages of disgustingly smitten adulation) years ago. But, I was always too embarrassed that it would be read by someone else, such as your webmaster, first.

I have nothing left to say but this:

Thank you.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 

quote:

---

Interesting. People can come on here and write about me with utter contempt, and hardly anyone calls them on it.

---

I tend to ignore idiots of all stripes. And anyone who comes to an author's website just to heap contempt upon them is an idiot.

Thus, I ignore.

Posts of people I like and/or respect, I do not ignore. But that does not necessarily mean I reply as they might expect . . .

quote:

---

But let me respond, and immediately the "peacekeepers" on Hatrack change the subject and bury the topic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orson Scott Card:
Of course, the very fact that I have to ask for respect is probably a clear indication that I don't deserve it and am never going to get it here.

---

Please don't say never. I respect you and will do my best not to post anything to demean you or anyone else. Any disagreements I have will only be posted after I have considered the facts, the analysis, and done my own research. I am not saying this to boost my ego or to place myself upon some pedestal where I can wave my arms and scream that I'm OSC's biggest and most respectful fan.

Rather, I write that because I believe that this is the attitude that most people take towards the forums. By most people, I do not include only those that post or have accumulated more than x number of posts. The majority of people that read these forums do not post often. (this is complete speculation, but from what I've learned on other sites, I'd wager it is accurate). I like to believe that the reason many of us do not post often is because we take the time to reflect upon what we are writing. It is the nature of the internet as an anonymous forum that some people do not feel the need to filter what they write or say. Without such a filter they become the most vocal and most prolific posters. If I posted every thoght that came into my head while reading these forums and your columns, I would certainly have hundreds more posts than I do now.

I read this forum for years before registering. I was finally motivated to register when I realized what an amazing opportunity I had to interact with one of my favorite authors. Additionally, I was becoming more confident in my knowledge of current events and my ability to express my opinion in a well thought out manner. I anticipated becoming an active member of the Books, Film, Food, and Culture forum.

Unfortunately, I realized soon after registering that discussions move too quickly for me. For example, your column on abortion in Freakonomics disturbed me greatly. I did not want to agree with you. But instead of writing that on the forum, I first directed some of my friends to the column. Then we discussed it. Still, I did not feel prepared to offer a opinion without first reading, or at least skimming, the book itself. By the time I had gotten to this point, though, the discussion on the forum had moved far beyond the original topic. An debate that took well over a week in my head and my life was over in a few hours on the forums.

This is a very long-winded way of saying that I, and I think many that read this forum, subscribe to two rules: (1) If you don't have anything nice to say (or can't state your alternative opinion nicely), don't say anything at all. (2) Better to keep your mouth shut and have everyone think you're a fool than leave it open and let everyone know it.

I only post when I have something worthwhile to say. Sometimes a silly comment can be worthwhile; just so long as it is appropriate for that thread's intent. You have the respect of many of us. Please don't take our silence to mean that we support the disrespect of others. We'd just rather ignore the meanyheads as best we can.

Hmm... A hypocritical post. I haven't thought about it as much as I would have liked before posting. Now I fear that even the above will come off as condescending, though I intended it to be no such thing.
 

---

Posted by Cali-Angel-Cat (Member # 8799) on :
 
Okay, I cannot stay quite on this one. I am going to join Dan in saying Thank You!

I originally found the site somewhere between 1999 and 2000, and I posted quite a bit under a different nickname, which I have since forgotten.

I really like the fact that you post here Mr. Card, and are not just a name on the wall. You have made me laugh, cry, scream, and rant with things here as well as in your books!

Saints will always be my favorite novel, although, I have yet find a book that you have written that I dislike. Your writing books and articles are some of my most treasured possessions.

I have five years of posts to catch up on along with articles. Wow.

I just wanted to express my gratitude to you for all that you have done and will do in the future.
 

---

Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
 
I've poked my head into this thread once or twice since it's been around, and it's really kind of ticked me off. But I haven't responded for one simple reason: I've been around long enough to know a troll when I see one. El JT de Spang (and, to some extent, Survivor and a few others) made some obvious and true comments near the top of the thread, and I don't think I could have added anything to them. I could have tried, but people like Pelegius make their deliberately stupid posts because they feed on the inevitable smack-down and the chaos that ensues. If I'd called him on his idiocy, it would only have achieved his goals, and I was hoping that this pointless thread would wither up and die, leaving room for the parts of this forum that matter.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I like to believe that the reason Pelegius got off as lightly as he did is because most people who read this thread were trying not to feed such an obvious and hideous troll. But as long as I am making what will hopefully end up being the only reply I ever post in a Pelegius thread, I'll just take this opportunity to say that I think he's a moron. And the worst kind of moron: one who thinks he's clever, and has enough time on his worthless hands that he wants to prove that to a bunch of strangers and one person he's delusional enough to think should give a damn about him. If he ever crawls out of his parents' basement and gets a job, he may realize that there are ways to make himself happy by contributing positively to society. But I won't hold my breath.

And as far as the actual content of his posts, I'm not going anywhere near that.

[ November 01, 2005, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: Speed ]
 

---

Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
 
Pelegius at his worst.
And best.
 

---

Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 
Mr. Card:

You only gave us an hour to come in this thread and agree with you before you got annoyed at the punch talkers. According to my timestamps, it was also the middle of the night.

I was asleep.

Hatrack threads get derailed sometimes. Sometimes I say really witty and clever things that get ignored, too. At least I think they're witty and clever. Instead, people go on talking about other things. But then, a couple pages later, somebody responds to my point and I feel better about it. It's just the way forums work.

There are also some people on this board who are so often clearly wrong that it can really annoy me. I wish more people would call them on it. If I wait long enough, they do. (Or sometimes, I do.)

If I wait even longer, I start to understand why those people who can really annoy me are tolerated as long-standing members. People earn their right to be here and to be heard, I think. This Pelegius guy hasn't earned that right, so hardly anybody takes him to task. It doesn't help that he makes threads like this one with such profoundly stupid suppositions.

Personally, I'm used to people whose handle is hardly recognizable coming to this side of the board to nitpick one area or another of one of your essays. It's ridiculous and most definitely NOT clever and new. It's done to death. If other Hatrackers are anything like me, they find it tiresome. A few people might set the poster straight, and after that, nobody else needs to. There are all sorts of exciting things to be discussed on the other side, after all. And sometimes there are respectful, valid posts on the subjects that become really interesting threads instead of personal attacks.

Anyway, don't assume that we sanction people like this guy just because we aren't posting or because we might post jokes instead. Traffic on this side of the board is typically slow...and it's even slower in the middle of the night. And really, Pelegius of the 136 posts hardly deserves the effort of typing out a rebuttal or a reprimand. But now it's been done, and those of us who usually read and rarely post (like me, lately), will nod sagely at the reprimands that he got and agree that he was out of line, but having nothing new to say, we'll click on another thread... and move on.

-Katarain
 

---

Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
 
I'll reply to the punch talking thing, as I'm one of those that did it.

I'll liken it to this: Compare this to a grand opening of an art gallery, featuring the works of a great artist. It's a public opening, and all kinds of people are there, drawn primarily by the fact that they like the artist's works. The artist himself is there, but there are so many people, and sometimes he's circulating the room, but most of the time he's in his private studio. So you never know if he's in the area. Most of us like and admire him, and he is the main topic of discussion.

One of the conversations is started by this dude who's a bit irritating. You know, he's got poor spelling and grammar, is an extreme political bigot, can't see anybody else's side of the issue, and is very offensive in doing so. You know, your typical university professor in California.

Well, Professor Seaperson disagrees with some of the artist's opinions, and he's got no tact in doing so. Perhaps he thinks he's back at the U "teaching" a class. But anyway, he's rude and offensive, and he's pretty much alienated everyone listening, even the ones who might think his opinion has merit.

Those of us in the conversation with him, however, are mystified by his attitude, and we're poking mild fun at him, but we don't get worked up over him because he's just not worth it. We know that as offensive to us, he's got to be even more infuriating to the artist, who we respect. But seeing as the artist isn't in the area, we think, we don't slap the guy down quite as hard as we could, and besides, what's the use - he won't get it.

However, the artist has left his studio and is now circulating among the guests. He comes by our conversation and overhears the offensive guy saying really mean and idiotic things about him. The artist gets mad (understandably) and snaps at him. Also understandable, but surprising.

Silence. Awkward silence. What do we say? How do we react? We didn't mean for the artist to get angry. We understand the artist's sentiments, and some of us agree. We're uncomfortable because not only is this the artist's show, but we also like and respect the artist. You know, it's different if we get mad, it doesn't really matter as much, because it isn't our show.

So, then, someone gets the idea of saying something mild and humourous to ease the tension.

Relief. We can move the topic to something a little less charged, like punch. We're not trying to make peace, we don't care if the irritating guy is offended, but we want to avoid the awkward situation.

It's not that we don't want to defend the artist, it's just that we don't take the offensive guy seriously. There is condescension in the conversation, but we're condescending to the offensive guy, not the artist.

Stepping out of the analogy now.

This guy (at least on this thread) is a Grego, except that he's not family, either. Gregos = trolls.

My thought is that Hatrack really is a reflection of Card's works. In the majority of Card's books, underlying the story, is an exploration of morality. Ender's Game. Was what Ender did moral? Why or why not? Stilson, Bonzo, the Buggers, were their deaths moral? On Hatrack, as well, there is an exploration of morality. When we have this exploration, we have all types of people, all types of views. Some are like Card. Some are not. But opposing views and different people are necessary to fully explore these issue. Sometimes we get lost, sometimes we end up in dead ends or down in bad neighborhoods. Sometimes the people who are in front of the exploration are idiots. But we keep exploring. Hatrack is an OSC novel writ large.
 

---

Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
 
If *I* was going to start a petty, pointless thread bashing OSC's writings on his own site, I'd definitely complain about his use of the spelling 'cooky' instead of 'cookie' in his recent essay. I still can't stop shuddering.
 

---

Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
 
You mean if you were going to start a petty pointless thread...

It's called the subjunctive. It's your friend.

[/meta-pettiness]

[ November 01, 2005, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: Speed ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Okay, I'll admit that I had to really try to find an example of Davidson's Law in your post, Speed, but there IS one: you need a comma after "petty."

*wipes brow*

------

BTW, tern, I know you and I don't always see eye-to-eye, but I thought that was a beautiful explanation of the phenomenon. May I save that post?
 

---

Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
 
Yes! Well done.
 

---

Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
 
Thank you Tom, feel free to save it - I'm happy to know that I'm not the only one who feels that way.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
It is indeed a great post. I am going to have to object to one section, though.

quote:

---

You know, he's got poor spelling and grammar, is an extreme political bigot, can't see anybody else's side of the issue, and is very offensive in doing so. You know, your typical university professor in California.

---

My parents are both university professors (in CA). So are many of the people they invite into their home. And I attended UCLA.

You unfairly slander the majority of "university professors in California." Not that there are none like your description; but that is far from "typical."


 

---

Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
 
Good post, tern.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 

quote:

---

You know, he's got poor spelling and grammar, is an extreme political bigot, can't see anybody else's side of the issue, and is very offensive in doing so.

---

Excluding the poor spelling and grammar bit, I would say this is true of about 90% of the posters on this forum. As we all know, everyone is crazy but you and me, and I'm not so sure about you.
 

---

Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
 
Or as I say, "Between you and me we know everything. You know everything except that you're an ***hole, and I know that."
 

---

Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
 
Heh. Guess I'm still bitter from my undergraduate years in the CSU system. ;P
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

People can come on here and write about me with utter contempt, and hardly anyone calls them on it. But let me respond, and immediately the "peacekeepers" on Hatrack change the subject and bury the topic.

I guess the message is that you can use Card's website to speak of Card as if he were someone's idiot child, without even the ordinary concern that you know what you're talking about first. No one protests this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tern:
Heh. Guess I'm still bitter from my undergraduate years in the CSU system. ;P

---

Be nice! My mom has been a CSUN lecturer for a number of years (and was at CSULB for a year or two a while back).


And Dags is correct. While I have little taste for conflict, I will fray away when I consider it necessary.

But sometimes I don't. And then I will discuss punch.



And docmagik, sometimes Rome isn't really burning. Pour enough gasoline on it, and that can change, though . . .
 

---

Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
 
What did your mom teach at CSUN? How long ago was she there?

In all fairness, there are certainly some quality teachers in the CSU system, and even some at the University of Last Resort (CSUN). And I didn't mean to tar every professor with the same brush...just most of them. ;P

Doc, Pelagius isn't a serious character or a main character in this little melodrama. Card is, but Pelagius is just a troll who needed to go back under his bridge, and there was no serious discussion here.
 

---

Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
 
: Heroically resists urge to mention that his Mom teaches at CSUSB :

Actually, serious discussion has started here--about fluffing.

The whole reason I didn't post this morning was that in the context of the thread as it stood, I didn't think it was worth it, and it wasn't entirely accurate to this particular situation.

But now that the discussion has turned to the virtues of fluffing and everybody's getting all warm and fuzzy about it, I felt that my original thoughts might need to be said after all.

But there are still smoldering embers of grand blazes on this forum that had a deafening accompaniment.

Just sayin'.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 

quote:

---

What did your mom teach at CSUN? How long ago was she there?

---

She is there now. (Well, not this very minute. ) She has taught math classes there for something like 15 years. Um . . . maybe longer. I don't remember what year she started.

quote:

---

In all fairness, there are certainly some quality teachers in the CSU system, and even some at the University of Last Resort (CSUN). And I didn't mean to tar every professor with the same brush...just most of them. ;P

---

You know, I not only know several CSUN staff members, I know quite a number of current and former students.

All of them are nicer than you are being.
 

---

Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
 
Look, I believe in trying to treat others with respect, give their ideas real consideration, and respond with the presumption that they've given those ideas at least as much consideration.

But this is a little ridiculous.

Mr. Card, this isn't a "writer's page" like the blogs of Neil Gaiman or Piers Anthony, a place where the author picks and chooses which correspondence he or she will respond to in his own time, perhaps editing said correspondence so his or her response appears in the best possible light. This is a forum, and that means that along with some interesting ideas and undoubtedly a good dose of praise (since virtually everyone who comes here does so out of appreciation for your writing) there will undoubtedly be some comments you find less appealing and critical. When you open the table to discussion, you accept that you relinquish some control in favor of the flexibility to create and throw out ideas. That's the price. Bully to you for showing that much bravery- but accept that that bravery has this cost!

Mr. Card, I have had many teachers who have used the argument- usually when backed into a corner- that they were wise, learned, and well read. That their arguments and tactics should be given the benefit of the doubt because of it. Many of these people were in fact wise and well read, and I'm grateful that I was able to learn from them because of that.

But none of their wisdom or learning prevented them from being, on occasion, dead wrong.

-

To the other respondents,

With Mr. Card responding as infrequently as he does (reasonably enough- he does have to do some of the writing that actually puts bread on the table, now and again), it seems like people trip over themselves in placation at this kind of interjection. That booming voice from on high- the creator is actually paying attention, scurry, scurry! Suddenly Pelagius is a troll, and people look for quotes that allow for his ideas' dismissal, and sneer at his grammar and syntax.

Pelagius was ill-equipped to comment on criticism of a book he had not read. True.

But was he wrong? Completely off-base, off-the-charts, wrong? So inherently wrong in every facet that his comments warrant derisive dismissal without examination but for what examination furthers that dismissal?

I'll grant, I certainly have my biases. In some cases I try to overcome them, in others, to justify them.

But what I find is that at least part of what Pelagius says is true: many of Card's articles accept such ideas as a powerful and corrupt left-wing political establishment, a morally bankrupt Hollywood, a uselessly pseudo-intellectual academic structure- without bothering to examine whether the association is appropriate for the given subject, or even true in general. These things have become "givens", self-evident truths that require no examination.

I could be wrong, Pelagius could be wrong. But you'll never know if you retreat from the issues rather than examine them. Now your pardon while I dismount my high horse.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Sterling wrote:
Mr. Card, I have had many teachers who have used the argument- usually when backed into a corner- that they were wise, learned, and well read. That their arguments and tactics should be given the benefit of the doubt because of it. Many of these people were in fact wise and well read, and I'm grateful that I was able to learn from them because of that.
But none of their wisdom or learning prevented them from being, on occasion, dead wrong.

---

quote:

---

Orson Scott Card wrote:
And therefore, just maybe, my ideas on other subjects might be worth THINKING ABOUT for a couple of seconds before spitting on them, on the remote chance I might not be an utter fool. And maybe, even if you disagree with me, you could write about my ideas on my own website with ordinary human respect instead of the condescension that began this thread and which permeates it.

---

quote:

---

Sterling wrote:
But was he wrong? Completely off-base, off-the-charts, wrong? So inherently wrong in every facet that his comments warrant derisive dismissal without examination but for what examination furthers that dismissal?

---

quote:

---

Sterling wrote:
But what I find is that at least part of what Pelagius says is true: many of Card's articles accept such ideas as a powerful and corrupt left-wing political establishment, a morally bankrupt Hollywood, a uselessly pseudo-intellectual academic structure- without bothering to examine whether the association is appropriate for the given subject, or even true in general. These things have become "givens", self-evident truths that require no examination.

I could be wrong, Pelagius could be wrong. But you'll never know if you retreat from the issues rather than examine them. Now your pardon while I dismount my high horse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Irregardless:

If *I* was going to start a petty, pointless thread bashing OSC's writings on his own site, I'd definitely complain about his use of the spelling 'cooky' instead of 'cookie' in his recent essay. I still can't stop shuddering.

---

I found this jarring too, but the dictionary lists both spellings.
 

---

Posted by Somnium (Member # 8482) on :
 
I think we should start a pointless arguement about how dictionary.com is far superior to dictionary.reference.com !

Honestly, I could care less about someone's beliefs until they start to cause harm to others.
 

---

Posted by Somnium (Member # 8482) on :
 
That is, as long as they are totally unfounded. Then it drives me nuts.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
>> I could care less about someone's beliefs until they start to cause harm to others.<<

"Harm" is entirely subjective.
 

---

Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
 
When I was young, "cooky" was definitely the preferred spelling. In English, we take many "y" endings and pluralize them with "ies." Occasionally, we back-form and take the plural "ies" and make a singular "ie" ending out of it. I haven't checked recently, but I do believe "cooky" was the original; and it remains the spelling that feels most natural to ME, though I usually bow to current convention and use the now-more-common "cookie" spelling as often as not.

I'm grateful to Sterling for demonstrating exactly the condescension-while-not-actually-paying-attention-to-what-I-actually-said that I have been talking about. Consider his posting to be a "viz.:" footnote to my earlier post.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
According to Random House, both "cookie" and "cooky" were regional spellings derived from the Dutch word "koekie," which was itself a dialectal variant of "koekje," or "cupcake." The "cooky" variant was apparently common in the American West until the late '50s, at which point "cookie" became the generally-accepted standard.
 

---

Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
 

quote:

---

You know how, in the Bronte-esque movie dinner parties, there's always that one lady wandering around during the really awkward, dramatic moment, trying to distract everybody by offering them tea or somehow otherwise pretending there isn't an awkward moment happening?

---

I'm disturbed by this discription, it describes me to a tea.

*takes a bite of her cooky and drinks her tea*
 

---

Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
 
I have no desire to condescend to you, Mr. Card. Quite the opposite; I hold you to a high standard. When I compare you to my past teachers, I am not being sarcastic; I hold that you are a person of some standards, intelligence, experience, and reading.

And to berate Pelegius for rudeness and failing to read the book without actually engaging the underlying question of whether there is a prevading right-wing bias is beneath you. That it would have been better informed to have read the book than just the criticism, I've recognized. This does not mean the question of bias is the result of failing to "think about your ideas for a couple of seconds without spitting on them."

You may feel, as Dagonee appears to, that these points have been sufficiently, even excessively, worked over in this and other forums. That's a legitimate point of view, but it's not what comes across in your post.

Dagonee, however one might dislike the phrasing Pelegius' post may have been, it did not dismiss Card's point of view. It stated that there appeared to be a dichotomy between Card's (my terms) "slanted" political writings and his "lucid" examination of the airlines. If I have been dismissive, explain. If you're just playing to the bench, give it a rest.
 

---

Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
 
Actually, I think Dagonee is referring to the comments made by other posters than Pelagius when he refers to dismissive posts that sneer at Pelagius's grammar and style. Like the ones I made. But hey, as has been aptly pointed out, I am mean, and Pelagius is a troll. While trolls might have good points or not, feeding them is still a bad idea.

I don't think that Card was wrong to call out Pelagius nor was he out of line in the manner that he did. I don't think it was useful, because if it registered at all on this Pelagius character, it probably was to give him satisfaction that he got a reaction.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Sterling, you seem to have an interesting and inconsistent idea of dismissive. Here's what Pel said about OSC's review of the book:

quote:

---

Card's newest column, as of Oct. 29, shows him at his worst, praising a book entitled "The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy." In fairness, I have not read it. However, even the conservative Economist thought it to be tasteless and, of course, blatantly partisan, comparing it with Michael Moore's work. He played is overused card (no pun in-ten-did), of pointing out the flaws of the United States Left, I use the term loosely, while ignoring the flaws of the Right.

---

In other words, he said this was Card at his "worst" because Card liked a book the Economist did not.

That's not analysis. Card wrote a couple of screenfuls on this topic, and Pelegius dismissed it with a reference to a single article in a magazine, with no particular reason why we should credit the Economist's view over Cards.

That's dismissive.

As for you being dismissive, we see it in your most recent post: "If you're just playing to the bench, give it a rest." You were also dismissive when you posted: "the creator is actually paying attention, scurry, scurry! Suddenly Pelagius is a troll, and people look for quotes that allow for his ideas' dismissal, and sneer at his grammar and syntax."

A whole bunch of people posted different thoughts on Pel's comments, and you summed them all up and assigned them the motive of currying favor. That's dismissive.

tern, I have not commented on the dismissiveness of anyone's posts toward Pelegius.
 

---

Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
 
My bad, I just reread the post. You're absolutely right, that was Sterling. *checks eyeglasses*

So, Sterling, why should we take a troll like Pelagius seriously? Do you feel that he in any way showed an interest in a serious discussion?
 

---

Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
 
*waves*

The Economist isn't what I would call a conservative magazine. They aren't liberal either. Like, you know, the vast majority of people or groups, they can't be simply given an overarching label of one or the other. On one issue they may take the "conservative" view (such as monetary policy) and on another the "liberal" view (like the War on Drugs).

I'd just like to clear that bit up.

Feel free to continue.
 

---

Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:
In other words, he said this was Card at his "worst" because Card liked a book the Economist did not.

That's not analysis. Card wrote a couple of screenfuls on this topic, and Pelegius dismissed it with a reference to a single article in a magazine, with no particular reason why we should credit the Economist's view over Cards.

That's dismissive.

---

quote:

---

As for you being dismissive, we see it in your most recent post: "If you're just playing to the bench, give it a rest." You were also dismissive when you posted: "the creator is actually paying attention, scurry, scurry! Suddenly Pelagius is a troll, and people look for quotes that allow for his ideas' dismissal, and sneer at his grammar and syntax."

A whole bunch of people posted different thoughts on Pel's comments, and you summed them all up and assigned them the motive of currying favor. That's dismissive.

---

quote:

---

SO SAYS BARON VON DOOM PELEGIUS, AND SO SHALL IT BE!

---

quote:

---

I'm not sure that the opposite of the word "conservative" is "socialist."

---

quote:

---

I'm not sure how him expressing his opinion of a book you haven't even read is an example of his "worst". Seems a little uncalled for, to me.

If you don't agree with him, then that's fine. But criticising his review because he didn't draw the same conclusions as some other reviewers is just unnecessary.

---

quote:

---

The odd thing about conservatives...they actually think that being partisan is tasteless.

---

quote:

---

I think it's absolutely awesome that yours is the ONLY author's website where people come to frequently trash the author.

---

quote:

---

I tend to ignore idiots of all stripes. And anyone who comes to an author's website just to heap contempt upon them is an idiot.

---

quote:

---

Please don't take our silence to mean that we support the disrespect of others. We'd just rather ignore the meanyheads as best we can.

---

quote:

---

Saints will always be my favorite novel, although, I have yet find a book that you have written that I dislike. Your writing books and articles are some of my most treasured possessions.

---

quote:

---

I've been around long enough to know a troll when I see one. El JT de Spang (and, to some extent, Survivor and a few others) made some obvious and true comments near the top of the thread, and I don't think I could have added anything to them. I could have tried, but people like Pelegius make their deliberately stupid posts because they feed on the inevitable smack-down and the chaos that ensues.

---

quote:

---

People earn their right to be here and to be heard, I think. This Pelegius guy hasn't earned that right, so hardly anybody takes him to task. It doesn't help that he makes threads like this one with such profoundly stupid suppositions.

---

quote:

---

It's not that we don't want to defend the artist, it's just that we don't take the offensive guy seriously. There is condescension in the conversation, but we're condescending to the offensive guy, not the artist.

---

quote:

---

If *I* was going to start a petty, pointless thread bashing OSC's writings on his own site, I'd definitely complain about his use of the spelling 'cooky' instead of 'cookie' in his recent essay. I still can't stop shuddering.

---

quote:

---

But then, he hits home with his very accurate picture of Airlines and air-routes.

...

Don't worry OSC, thats why we love you, even when you make us angry, becouse you are human like us.

---

quote:

---

And I can't speak for every post that is made, but I can point to a tone.

---

quote:

---

Reading books by the U.S. right is pointless. They all say the same things about how terribly persecuted they are, only controlling all three government branches, and how evil liberals hate America. Most a racists, OSC thankfully is not, all are militaristic. All believe in things that would embarrass even the most conservative European.

---

quote:

---

And if they bother to post again at all, it's usually only to pour more fuel on their own fires and insult people who post to the contrary.

---

quote:

---

And most of those not in that line were, as has been discussed, "fluffing", which while it doesn't imply attempting to curry favor, certainly suggests an attempt to mollify the author's sudden and unexpected flare. Card posted, and things changed completely. And while some would argue that the tone before Card's post was lightly contemptuous of Pelegius, the tone afterward was openly and venomously so, and certainly no one saw fit to speak in a fashion *contrary* to that tone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sterling:
Having failed to read the book (shame), Pelegius took a single review (a regrettably narrow sample) as context to the premise that Card in particular approved of the book, above and beyond a general concensus of others whose points of view are typically classified as "right wing" (The Economist) and might thus be expected to approve of a book such as _The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy_.

However, given Card's willingness to, among other things, refer to the "Clintonistas" (a term I'm going to presume was not present in the book), perhaps Pelegius has some grounds to suggest that Card's comes from a point-of-view that is right of center, and that this may have influenced his favorable review of said book. His grounds to criticize the book itself are sketchy; his grounds to judge the lens through which Card observes that book, less so.[/QB]

---

Translating Leftspeak into English:

quote:

---

"OK, so Pelegius reviewed a book review without bothering to read the book. That's not good. But Card uses words like "Clintonistas" which proves that he's right of center. So it was good for Pelegius to start a whole thread that dismisses Card's review. You don't have to know anything about the topic to dismiss an argument, once you know that the argument was written by a <gasp> conservative.

---

quote:

---

Let's get this straight -- anyone who dislikes Clinton is right of center?

---

quote:

---

"OK, so Pelegius reviewed a book review without bothering to read the book. That's not good. But Card uses words like "Clintonistas" which proves that he's right of center. So it was good for Pelegius to start a whole thread that dismisses Card's review. You don't have to know anything about the topic to dismiss an argument, once you know that the argument was written by a <gasp> conservative.

---

quote:

---

But you didn't point to a tone. You stated what the motives of the posters were when you had no way of knowing that.

---

quote:

---

it seems like people trip over themselves in placation at this kind of interjection

---

quote:

---

Yep, that's a troll post.

I will grant that there are far worse trolls, but little gems like that are what it's all about, saying something incredibly inflammatory in order to elicit reactions.

---

quote:

---

Yes indeedy, see the first quote

---

quote:

---

So if our "fluffing" was an attempt to mollify Card's flare, what is so bad about that? Were we required to continue on in the same lightly contemptous vein? Why not lighten the tone? It's kinda like we're with friends, and everyone's joking around, and suddenly one of the guys gets mad at what was said. So we're like whoa, didn't know that bothered you so much, let's talk about something less charged.

---

quote:

---

You used the Bronte movie analogy

---

quote:

---

So yes, Card's posts changed the tone of the discussion. After all, this is the Official Web Site of Orson Scott Card. At least on this side of the forums, everything really does revolve around him.

I think you do us a disservice by implying that we changed our tone in order to suck up to Card.

---

quote:

---

You can dislike Bill Clinton or the Clintons in general without referring to them by defamatory nicknames.

---

Defamatory nicknames?

As anyone with minimal knowledge of Spanish (e.g. has eaten twice at a Mexican Restaurant) knows, -ista means "supporters of." Clintonistas means supporters of Clinton. Bushista would mean supporters of Bush.

Not defamatory. Descriptive.
 

---

Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
 
Heh, you're right...the Bronte analogy wasn't you.

*checks glasses again*

*wait, realizes doesn't wear glasses*

I'm sorry - it looks like it's my day to mis-attribute people. Probably because we covered the correct way to do citations in class recently, brain hurtssssss.

quote:

---

But the poster was Card. Would anyone else's indignation be treated so?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sterling:
Translating what I actually said into a straw man argument:

quote:

---

"OK, so Pelegius reviewed a book review without bothering to read the book. That's not good. But Card uses words like "Clintonistas" which proves that he's right of center. So it was good for Pelegius to start a whole thread that dismisses Card's review. You don't have to know anything about the topic to dismiss an argument, once you know that the argument was written by a <gasp> conservative.

---

You can dislike Bill Clinton or the Clintons in general without referring to them by defamatory nicknames. God knows I don't like everything he did in office. It was, as I said, one example among other things, which spares me from having to quote the entire article in every damn post.

If the topic was the book, he was insufficently informed. However, if you will look at the topic line, it isn't talking about the book, it's talking about Card and the point of view from which he reviewed that book and other things.

And even IF someone is to the right of Genghis Kahn or to the left of Karl Marx, that doesn't mean their point of view should be dismissed out of hand. Nor did I say anything of the sort. It just means you consider that they're coming from that perspective when they venture an opinion.

I'll thank you not to think to put words in my mouth again.

---

quote:

---

"OK, so Pelegius reviewed a book review without bothering to read the book. That's not good. But Card uses words like "Clintonistas" which is somehow "defamatory," proving that Card is unapologetically right of center. So it was good for Pelegius to start a whole thread that critiques Card's review. You don't have to know anything about the book to criticize the book review, once you know that the book was reviewed by someone whose point of view is so twisted that he commits atrocities like put a Spanish suffix on Clinton, and to say other awful things that I don't want to go into here."

---

quote:

---

As anyone with minimal knowledge of Spanish (e.g. has eaten twice at a Mexican Restaurant) knows, -ista means "supporters of." Clintonistas means supporters of Clinton. Bushista would mean supporters of Bush.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:

quote:

---

As anyone with minimal knowledge of Spanish (e.g. has eaten twice at a Mexican Restaurant) knows, -ista means "supporters of." Clintonistas means supporters of Clinton. Bushista would mean supporters of Bush.

---

Well, no. I'm aware -- and I'm sure that Card is aware -- of the connotations of "-ista" in English.

---

quote:

---

"Clintonista" is almost as loaded as the term "feminazi."

---

If that's true (and that's the first I've heard it), it's probably because after Clinton was out of power, many of the people who screamed and rallied to support and protect him, now want to deny that they ever did such a thing. The pejorative, if any, probably has more to do with the "Clinton" than the "ista." Although to be fair, these fair weather friends seem more contemptible than Clinton himself, who had his strengths as a president as well as his weaknesses. I'll never understand OSC's loathing of Clinton, but I find Clinton's fair weather friends far more disturbing.

In LDS American culture, I've heard folks who like to argue with anti-mormons refer to themselves as "zionistas." Maybe it's because we're more friendly with Latinos rather than dispising them, that we don't see "ista" as innately pejorative.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
So does that make beach bums sandinistas?
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
>_<

AJ! That was AWFUL!
 

---

Posted by Ghengis Cohen (Member # 8813) on :
 
Or we could all be Orsonistas, since Cardista doesn't roll off the tongue.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
It does if you say it with a Spanish accent. Cahr-DEES-tah!
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
I grew up in a hispanic community. To me "-ista" generally implies militarism, as a result of the widespred usage of sandinista and the connotations thereof.

It isn't a complimentary familiar form to my knowledge. I think any one who would choose to self-identify as a Zionista is sadly unaware of larger scale marketing implications and/or linguistic derivations outside of Utah. To me it immediately implies someone in a militaristic quasi-christian looney fringe such as Fred Phelps. But with guns.

AJ
 

---

Posted by Ghengis Cohen (Member # 8813) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by BannaOj:
I grew up in a hispanic community. To me "-ista" generally implies militarism, as a result of the widespred usage of sandinista and the connotations thereof.

It isn't a complimentary familiar form to my knowledge. I think any one who would choose to self-identify as a Zionista is sadly unaware of larger scale marketing implications and/or linguistic derivations outside of Utah.

---

quote:

---

Just humilliating people who circulate falsehoods about LDS beliefs and practices. It was a hobby of mine for a couple years after my sister's life was threatened in Bulgaria because of such rumors.

---

quote:

---

The term Zionista is self-deprecating, but that's not quite the same thing as derogatory.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BannaOj:
But we aren't talking about Mexico. We are talking about how the appelation -ista has been used in US journalism.

---

quote:

---

And if, you are actually comparing a US polititical group using the mexican suffix as you defined above I think it is even more derogatory and insuinating of corruption and groupthink loyalty, given the level of political corruption in Mexico vs. the US.

---

quote:

---

I think the militarist interpretation is actually kinder than the corruption implications in your definition above.

---

quote:

---

Just humilliating people who circulate falsehoods about LDS beliefs and practices. It was a hobby of mine for a couple years after my sister's life was threatened in Bulgaria because of such rumors.
------
I'm sorry about your sister. Do you really believe humiliation produces a productive change in attitude at the individual level? I tend to think it leads towards resentful bitterness in the main.

---

quote:

---

I thought we were talking about how Card used it. Card is not a journalist.

---

But, um, you are.
 

---

Posted by Ghengis Cohen (Member # 8813) on :
 
I am *not* a journalist, Tom.

And mildly deprecating is a LONG way from derogatory. Hell, man "zionista" is affectionately deprecating, like "little brother."
 

---

Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
 

quote:

---

If *I* was going to start a petty, pointless thread bashing OSC's writings on his own site, I'd definitely complain about his use of the spelling 'cooky' instead of 'cookie' in his recent essay. I still can't stop shuddering.

---

quote:

---

And mildly deprecating is a LONG way from derogatory.

---

quote:

---

As anyone with minimal knowledge of Spanish (e.g. has eaten twice at a Mexican Restaurant) knows, -ista means "supporters of." Clintonistas means supporters of Clinton. Bushista would mean supporters of Bush.

---

quote:

---

Oh, I'm not putting any words into your mouth. Just trying to get the English meaning of what you said.

---

quote:

---

Sterling, if you're going to read that much into "Clintonista," then surely you're capable of realizing the obvious insulting connotations of "eople trip over themselves in placation at this kind of interjection. That booming voice from on high- the creator is actually paying attention, scurry, scurry."

---

quote:

---

Might I suggest that way too much attention is given to the sterlings and pelegiuses of the world?

---

quote:

---

The fact is, almost everyone here cares about Card. We want his approval, we want his comments, we want him to be happy, we want him to write many more books. Especially if they are like Enchantment or Pastwatch.

And so, for these reasons and many similar reasons, Card is treated differently and percieved differently. There are different standards for Card. And rightly so.

So should Card avoid posting in the forum?

Absolutely not. He's different, and he's special, but it's not a bad thing. It's just a different thing. He should continue posting, and we all, including Card, should remember that there are different rules for him.

---

quote:

---

You may, but if all you have to contribute is lumping us together (under "trolls", I presume?) and vaguely wishing I'd go away, I wish you wouldn't.

---

quote:

---

"Card's newest column, as of Oct. 29, shows him at his worst, praising a book entitled "The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy." In fairness, I have not read it."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:

quote:

---

And mildly deprecating is a LONG way from derogatory.

---

I submit that it's not the person doing the deprecating who gets to make that assessment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:
Tom's submitting again!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sterling:
Took Spanish to mid-level in college, thanks. And that doesn't change that the group most familiarly referenced by the -ista suffix in the United States is the Sandanistas, a paramilitary Marxist group. Effectively, calling them "the Clintonistas" is implying that that they're marxist in their leanings and boderline violent in their fanatacism. Which might be why, strangely enough, you wont hear anyone referring to "Bushistas"

---

Google search on "bushista"

Results 1 - 10 of about 25,900 for bushista. (0.31 seconds)

Any more factoids you'd like to spin off your head for us, Sterling?


Examples:

quote:

---

El arma religiosa bushista-thatcheriana de la globalización [Voltaire] - [ Translate this page ]
El arma religiosa bushista-thatcheriana de la globalización | Los cristianos
renovados | El Estado de Texas se ha convertido en un centro difusor del ...
www.voltairenet.org/article120615.html - 44k - Cached - Similar pages

---

quote:

---

John Kerry ataca a Venezuela para ganar votos de anticastristas de ... - [ Translate this page ]
"Más bushista que Bush". Muchos progresistas parecen no percibir a Kerry como una
... "Kerry parece ser mas bushista que Bush cuando de Cuba y Venezuela se ...
www.aporrea.org/dameverbo.php?docid=16322 - 27k - Cached - Similar pages

---

quote:

---

Americas Program | Commentary | La victoria de Bush y América Latina - [ Translate this page ]
¿Cómo afectará la victoria bushista al resto del mundo y del continente?
La victoria de Bush y América Latina. por Isaac Bigio | 22 de noviembre de 2002 ...
americas.irc-online.org/ commentary/2002/sp_0211bush_body.html - 11k - Cached - Similar pages

---

quote:

---

DoD News: Pentagon Spokeswoman Steps Down
Pentagon Spokeswoman Steps Down. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld announced
today that chief Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clarke would step down ...
www.defenselink.mil/releases/2003/nr20030616-0102.html - 29k - Cached - Similar pages

---

quote:

---

Most of the other Bushista links in English appear negative.

---

Well, duh. Which is what I've been saying.
 

---

Posted by Kit the Odd (Member # 4975) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sterling:

People _did_ trip over themselves in the attempt to placate Card, in the sense that all conversational momentum swung in that direction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:

quote:

---

Most of the other Bushista links in English appear negative.

---

Well, duh. Which is what I've been saying.

---

Indeed you have, which is why I said your response was merely irrelevant; Sterling OTOH was dead wrong.
 

---

Posted by Ghengis Cohen (Member # 8813) on :
 
I'll even concede that most of the English usages of the word were derogatory, Tom; but as I've explained above, that's irrelevant.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Except that you appear to be claiming that it is unlikely that Card was familiar with the common English usage and connotation of the suffix, and I disagree with that assessment. Your own Google examples -- and other Google examples; try Googling "Clintonista" some time -- suggest that I'm not wrong about how "-ista" is generally used, and I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that a professional author and culture analyst of Card's caliber would be aware of it.
 

---

Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:

quote:

---

You may, but if all you have to contribute is lumping us together (under "trolls", I presume?) and vaguely wishing I'd go away, I wish you wouldn't.

---

Instead of lumping us together?

---

quote:

---

for holding views that do not coincide with the those of the far-right wing

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pelegius:
I am no censor, nor I am a hypocrite, although gladly to my critics ascribe such titles to me:

---

I couldn't find anyone who called you either of those names here. "Moron" and "troll" maybe, but not "censor" or "hypocrite".

Just thought that might make you feel better.
 

---

Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
 

 

---

Posted by KidB (Member # 8821) on :
 
Okay. So I've never been on Hatrack before, but some of you know me from Ornery under another, cleverly impenetrable guise.

Now I happily risk permanent expulsion because I seem to be the only one here (perhaps because I am not really a fan of Card's fiction) willing to call him out on this:

quote:

---

Interesting. People can come on here and write about me with utter contempt, and hardly anyone calls them on it. But let me respond, and immediately the "peacekeepers" on Hatrack change the subject and bury the topic.

I guess the message is that you can use Card's website to speak of Card as if he were someone's idiot child, without even the ordinary concern that you know what you're talking about first. No one protests this. But let Card call you on it, and suddenly THIS must be prevented at all costs.

There are plenty of places on the web to vilify me to your heart's content. What special pleasure is there about doing it here on my own site? And why am I forbidden to answer the attacks?

I've checked. This doesn't happen on ANY other author's website.

---

quote:

---

I've checked. This doesn't happen on ANY other author's website.

---

And this would be...why, exactly?
 

---

Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
 
TomDavidson, books are as good as their ideas. I could write a book consisting of the words "Affiliate Marketing Forum" and nothing else. I could not expect it be considered good. Logic, being a science, cannot afford to be as partisan as a book entitled "The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy" clearly is. Political Science must be held to the same standards as other sciences. I am 100% sure that "The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy" is not unbiased, and thus 100% sure that it is of no use whatsoever to anybody, save to the writer, who profits, and the politiques, who love propaganda. Yes, I do consider propaganda, that is to say all works of "philosophy" not held to the standard of logical analysis of, say, Geometry.
 

---

Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
 

quote:

---

I am 100% sure that...

---

quote:

---

You are way too easy on him. If someone invited me over to their house for an evening of conversation, and said host only every spoke up to complaim about how he was being victimized by those guests who disagreed with him, I would consider that host to be rude and boorish. I would suspect that his only reason for inviting people over was to have them meet his need for approval.

---

quote:

---

Democrats raised an unprecedented level of funds in their attempt to elect John Kerry to the White House, and not just through contributing to directly to Kerry's campaign. Led by George Soros and his multimillion-dollar donations, money flowed to liberal groups like MoveOn that tried to push hard on President Bush's record. They failed, York argues, because rather than bringing new voters into the party, the activists perpetuated "closed loops" that preached solely to the choir. When such emotionally zealous activists made their way into Democratic inner circles, their scorn for anyone who held opposing points of view, York contends, may well have hurt efforts to reach out to swing voters. A detailed financial breakdown takes aim at the hype surrounding Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, demonstrating its failure to reach significant audiences outside the bluest parts of the blue states. York, the White House correspondent for the National Review, hits the Democrats particularly hard on allegations that they tried to skirt campaign finance laws by blurring-perhaps even crossing-the lines between the presidential campaign and issue advocacy groups prohibited from endorsing candidates. He largely refrains from taunting the liberals for their electoral failures, making his analysis of the flaws in the left-wing's self-insulated power structure valuable to readers on either side of the political fence.

---

quote:

---

I've seen Card accused of a lot of things, but stupidity isn't one of them. If he only wanted sheep, he could delete posts and ban members until he'd tailored his flock to fit his needs. I think that there is a big difference between not wanting to be bashed whenever he enters the forum and wanting people to hang on his every word.

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I question my own beliefs far more rigorously than anyone here has shown any signs of knowing how to do.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
tern said:
With all due respect, that is a comment that lowers the effectiveness of your precis.

---

quote:

---

And even if few people care enough to defend the old family values against the screaming hate speech of the Left -- which is what they're counting on, of course -- the end will be the same. Because with marriage finally killed, America will no longer be able to raise up children with any trust in or loyalty to or willingness to sacrifice for that society.

So either civilized people will succeed in establishing a government that protects the family; or civilized people will withdraw their allegiance from the government that won't protect it; or the politically correct barbarians will have complete victory over the family -- and, lacking the strong family structure on which civilization depends, our civilization will collapse or fade away.

---

quote:

---

I think that much of the anger is born of a false sense of ownership and a real frustration that makes them think that if they keep beating him long enough, he'll play nicely.

---

quote:

---

LadyDove,

1) Men need a strong deoderant.

2) Homosexuals who want to get married will bring about the end of civilization.

Coming from a stranger, which of THESE opinions is more offensive?

---

quote:

---

I don't see how anyone aside from OSC could "know how" to question his beliefs more rigidly than he does.

---

There's not really any way to say how this statement was supposed to be interpreted, but pretty much everyone except you seems to have taken it to means, "I question my beliefs far more rigorously than anyone else here has shown themselves able to question their own beliefs." Unless the guy who wrote it wants to clarify.

But you seem to be basing a large part of your argument on the interpretation of a statement that no one else interpreted the same way.
 

---

Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
 
Granted, JT-

I guess we'll just have to wait and see or agree to disagree.
 

---

Posted by KidB (Member # 8821) on :
 
Lady D,

I halfway agree with your point about "us" trying to get "him" to be be a certain way. We can only do so much...in the end, we should stop beating our heads against the wall and move on.

OSC, judging from what he writes, seems to be genuinely hurt by "our" treatment of him here and elsewhere. However, until he decides to change, he will continue to reap what he sows.

And...I'm glad I made you laugh.
 

---

Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
 
KidB-


 

---

Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
 
[post relocated so's not to break the flow of last night's debate]
The subject has drifted pretty quickly, but I'm going to respong to P's last post.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pelegius:

El JT de Spang, the title is indication of the bias. I might suspect that book entitled "A Study of Corruption in America's Left-Wing" was biased, but I would not be sure. However, anyone who thinks that there is "A Vast Left Wing Conspiracy," and writes a book on the subject, cannot expect to be considered an unbiased critic of modern politics, for the same reason that someone who writes a book entitled "Space-Aliens Among Us" cannot be held to be an unbiased researcher on the subject of extraterrestrial intelligence.

---

quote:

---

I'm not saying that I wouldn't prefer to see him leave the barbs out of his editorials, I'm just saying that it is ridiculous for people to try to beat him into changing his style.

---

quote:

---

This man, like many famous people, has a pathological desire to be loved by one and all, and when he isn't he gets his nose bent out of joint.

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not saying that I wouldn't prefer to see him leave the barbs out of his editorials, I'm just saying that it is ridiculous for people to try to beat him into changing his style.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Except that's not what you're saying. You're attempting to persuade us that we shouldn't feel insulted at all, not that we shouldn't try to persuade him not to insult us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pelegius:

Speed, comedy operates under different rules than philosophy. Bill O'Reilly is well known for his "spin" on world affairs, and is thus no more trustworthy than any of the other spewers of hate-sermons that pollute the airwaves, dragging ideas down to their basest level.

---

A couple times a year I have to respond to trolls, just so I can remember why I never respond to trolls.

That was perfect. Molto gratzi.


 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

What I did try to show is that there is a difference between insulting a group and insulting an individual.

---

quote:

---

Molto gratzi.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:
You did not decribe actions. You ascribed motives to actions with no basis for doing so, lumping together everyone who performed those actions under a common motive.

---

quote:

---

But I have asked repeatedly what better way anyone has come up with to get Card to stop insulting large swaths of the population

---

quote:

---

Dag, that's your interpretation. You're welcome to it, but it isn't necessarily there in what I wrote, nor does that interpretation seem to be the only one held among the other posters.

---

quote:

---

I'm saying that all insults directed at a group are not necessarily directly personally at each and every group member.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:

quote:

---

What I did try to show is that there is a difference between insulting a group and insulting an individual.

---

I'm not sure I'm willing to concede this, LadyDove. I don't see why I should take "all fat men are stupid" to be less of an insult than "you, Tom Davidson, are stupid." That one is more demonstrably false (and to clarify, I'm referring here to the former) does not make it less insulting.

---

quote:

---

He knows more about writing and influencing people than we ever will, so I think we should just shut up and defer to his greater expertise, his thousands of hours of research, the many, many, many books he's read

---

quote:

---

Those who disagree with me show little sign of understanding even the rudimentary principles I'm talking about; and those who agree with me are no better, merely assuming that I'm "on their team" and saying "go Orson!"

---

quote:

---

If I were to say that "all Fat Men are FAT," that would be true, and nonetheless, in our culture, deeply insulting.

---

quote:

---

If I choose to attach my self-image to all of these groups, I could spend my entire life offended by the hyperboles or baseless accusation that I hear everyday. But that would be a sad and sorry waste of a life.

---

The other component of an insult which is required before it becomes effective is respect for the opinion of the person who delivers the insult. When someone like digging_holes or Baldar insulted me, I was never particularly distraught; their opinions simply don't register on my self-image. In the same way, I don't often find myself worrying too much about what Ann Coulter would think of me. But I do hold OSC in fairly high esteem, so it's often like being kicked in the teeth when I forget and read one of his essays.

So here's my suggested recipe for an infuriating insult:

1) Delivered by someone whose opinion you respect
2) Clearly intended to be insulting
3) Broadly generalized and/or inaccurate, but true enough in broad strokes to require lengthy refutation

What do you think?
 

---

Posted by Ghengis Cohen (Member # 8813) on :
 
Well-constructed, Tom. I've read it, circled around it, and can't find a chink. I have to concede.

Constants and other modifiers may be necessary, but I'd go so far as to say that the offensiveness of the insult is almost proportional to the product of the three factors you listed.

It's hard for me to be truly offended by someone whose opinion I don't respect at all.

I agree it's a factor, but I don't absolutely need them intend the insult to be offensive. We had pijama day at school one day, and I came in red Thai robe my wife had given me, and a classmate (intending to compliment me) said that I'd made a perfect impression of Hugh Hefner. As you can imagine, I was horrified and insulted, but not angry with her. Fortunately the robe is reversible to a different color.
 

---

Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
 

quote:

---

1) Delivered by someone whose opinion you respect

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:

quote:

---

Dag, that's your interpretation. You're welcome to it, but it isn't necessarily there in what I wrote, nor does that interpretation seem to be the only one held among the other posters.

---

Sure it is. You claimed that the creator paying attention was the impetus for scurring to placate.

That's what motive means - the reason someone did something.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LadyDove:
My friend's eyes glazed over, he nodded his head and put-up with it for a few moments more, then excused himself.

I caught-up with my friend later and he said, "Why do straight people assume that I want to hear how angry they are on my behalf? I don't need to get married, but mostly, I don't need to be their poster boy."

After that, I did alot of thinking. First, I realized that though *I* had been indignant on my friend's behalf, I'd have done him a better turn by not assuming that he would be offended at an issue I hadn't discussed with him.

Second, I realized that he doesn't know Card, so Card's words wouldn't hurt him.

---

You're unusual among the non-gay pro-ssm folks I've run into, then, in that you do actually listen and pay attention, and realize that the world does not revolve around your guilt & redemption quest. The most ferocious and vindictive ssm advocates I know are usually self-described heterosexuals. As an anti-ssm hothead, I find that most of the gays in LTSSRs are fairly reasonable people to argue with.
 

---

Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
What I find interesting about OSC is that he is smart enough to know that alot of what his own political "team" says and does is very dumb, just like his opossition is equally dumb most of the time, and yet he still sides with them, (the right) because he considers himself a conservative?

I think anyone smart enough to realize that 95 percent of all politics is dart-throwing, should be an independent, and accessible to BOTH sides of every situation, the better to lend himself to the welfare of his country
 

---

Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
 
I agree with rivka.
 

---

Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
 
Since when has Card started considering himself a conservative?

His political "team" is the Democratic party. It has been since he was barely out of his teens. On every issue that he sides with Republicans (or whoever, so far he hasn't made any approaches to the Cybernetic Alliance [aka "the Daleks" ]), he's crossing party lines for the sake of his own beliefs.

Of course, I can't really understand why he continues to describe himself as a Democrat...I mean, I know about his insane hatred for the free-market system (as if living the consecrated life is even an option under any economic model), but I don't understand it. But then, I can't understand why anyone would be a Democrat other than because of boiling hatred for all that is good and decent, so that isn't really surprising
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
You said you've found Empire deeply affecting. In what way did it affect you, if not to help you reconsider your partisan biases?
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 

quote:

---

as if living the consecrated life is even an option under any economic model

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DDDaysh:
Ouch... what possible good could this thread do?

---

And why to my horror do I have the opportunity to look at a vintage Peligius soliloquy, only to jump on over to the last page and see that the person being responded to after 15 MONTHS IS ME!!!

I am quite disappointed that this thread has been brought up. I will not post here again, and if this thread continues I'll also enjoy cherry picking out my contribution to it. Sorry, that's just how it's going to be.
 

---

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
I miss his particular brand of sanctimonious pseudointellectualasim, and I didn't even get to see it for that long!
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Samp,
If you look around, you may be able to find another poster who joined a few days after Pel left who bears a curious resemblence to Pel in many ways, including the sanctimonious pseudointellectualism.
 

---

Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
 
Squick, I knew who that was going to be before I clicked on the link.
 

---

Posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix (Member # 10094) on :
 
Mr. Card, do not take it personal. It is seems to have become American nature to belittle a person to attain self gratification. Most people are quick to discuss negative issues and break down something, and they break it down harder if they can tell a bit of emotion was put into it. Personally I adore your work, and Enders Game is honestly the reason I want to write. That novel hit me from start to finish, and I get more out of it every time I read it. I have read a lot of your work, and I am currently reading "Children of the Mind" again. I have just started reading your reviews, comments and articles. While I do not agree with all of your views, I think you have an uncanny ability to make your point clear. If someone immediately goes into a negative attack against something you said or wrote, please look more seriously into it before you take it so personal. My dad once told me words are only as powerful as you let them be. Essentially somebody can call me a dumb@$$, but I am only one if I believe what they told me. Don't let someone bashing you about a book review that they did not even read the book bother you. The world is full of stupid people, and if you let them all get to you you run around life to angry to enjoy it. You are loved and received, look at all the people registered on your site. As for the other authors not getting bashed on their sites, well pooh on them. Maybe they don't write with enough controversy to inspire emotional arguments. Take it as a compliment that you inspire attackers PS When I finish my book, the only review that would matter to me would be yours or Isaac Asimov's and I am obviously not getting his.
 

---

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 

quote:

---

But then, I can't understand why anyone would be a Democrat other than because of boiling hatred for all that is good and decent

---

quote:

---

Pelegius at his worst.
And best.

---

Those links were priceless Speed.
 

---

Posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix (Member # 10094) on :
 
after reading my own post a day later I have to say I sounded so much like a fanboy,... ack
 

---

Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
You know I just realized that my first post on this page was actually my first post on Hatrack, ever?

That's kind of wierd, that it took like 15 months to get a response to my first post. Is that wierd or what?
 

---