posted
Seriously. Rather than spend my time bitching about someone's opinions (on that someone's dime), I'd much rather ignore what I consider so below me and get over it.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you don't enjoy people's bitching, you don't have to read it (or listen, as the case may be).
Posts: 1855 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you don't enjoy people's bitching, you don't have to read it.
Oh, trust me, I usually don't.
It just seems a shame to see so many threads so repeatedly devoted to maliciously criticizing our host.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Frankly, I get the sense that Orson Scott Card would be much more offended by people agreeing with everything he says.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the board in general is far too full of deliberate obtuseness and missing-of-the-point in order to say "I'm right"... which is why I have avoided controversial discussions for a while, now and the rare times when I stick my nose back into one I am not encouraged to change this practice.
posted
I'm assuming that this was prompted by my thread. For myself, bitching about his opinions are definitely a secondary concern. In this particular instance, I'm much more interested in talking about the wider issues of intellectual integrity, crap self-esteem, and anti-elitism/intellectualism, especially as they relate to the psychology and the socially acceptable prejudices have about it.
I'd never start a thread just to say "Oooh, I don't like what OSC wrote" with the sole (or primary) purpose of trashing him or his column. However, I don't think writing about my negative opinions of what and how OSC wrote and how it fits into wider issues should be off-limits.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, I bet his living room has some pretty lively discussions that are not all in praise of his words. He created Ornery, for Pete's sake. Personal attacks? Not OK. Disagreement with what he is saying? Fine by me, and I bet by him. There are always more polite ways of saying things. Instead if "Does he even do any resaerch?" one could say, simply, "I disagree with what OSC says about (blank), and here are my reasons." Kat, are you really saying that being polite to him is agreeing with him, or ignoring him if you disagree? I just have a whole lot more respect for his ability to defend himself than that.
[ February 15, 2005, 03:56 PM: Message edited by: Elizabeth ]
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just don't think that discussions are ever helpful or productive when they're dripping with disdain. This is why I don't usually follow movements that hold as a premise that George Bush is the antichrist or particularly care for conservative talk radio that is little more than mob-mentality scoffing.
Opinions are one thing - express your opinions wherever you like. Disdain is another. Civil discourse is supposed to be just that.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've never bought into the living room metaphor. While OSC pays for the site, for which I'm grateful, he has very little to do with the acutal community here. Even with my, relative to other people's, lesser contributions, I've put a lot more effort into the community here than he has. I think a more accurate metaphor would be this Hatrack as a warehouse that OSC pays for that we come to to create things in.
Nor do I tihnk that my negative comments are out of place (although certainly some of the things people have said like "OSC is worse than Hitler" are). He writes a column at least obstensively to provoke discussion. I treat what he writes as pretty much equivilent to if he posted it in a thread here, although with the consideration that it's also exposed on a wider scale. I don't think my criticisms are unfair. If you think they are, by all means, engage me on them. Lay out a case for why they are unfair. If I think you make your point, I ceratinly ackowledge it. But if you're unwilling to do that, I don't think calling me a big meanie for holding a negative opinion of our host's columns is omething I'm going to care about.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I said, I don't see it being limited to OSC, nor do am I talking about snarkiness, which I generally find funny. It's the underlying assumptions that people make in their statements. Even Bob Scopatz has done it recently (to pick on someone who it's nearly impossible not to like) and I'm sure I do it often, myself. When it's implicit in your disagreement and, particularly, your tone that the people with whom you are differing must be (lazy, stupid, ignorant, evil, controlling, deliberately spreading falsehood, whatever...), then no one who has a disagreement with you is going to answer you civilly and most aren't going to answer at all.
And if that's what you want, fine, but don't pretend you are interested in a civil discourse and legitimate differences of opinion.
Edit: In case this is unclear, it's not directed at any one person... much more a general rant towards Ela's claim that she doesn't see disdain out there... I see little else on a lot of controversial threads, which was not always the case here.
quote:I'm trying to imagine someone starting a thread on sakeriver bashing saxy.
I'm quite open to people criticizing what I say and how I say it. In fact, if I were to write a review, article, or thread that someone found rude, arrogant, offensive, or misinformed, I would hope that he or she would call me on it. Of course, on the flipside, if the person calling me on it did so in a fashion that I thought was overly antagonistic I might respond in kind or, more likely, ignore him or her.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Katie, if this place is OSC's living room, do you believe that his essays are also being shared in that living room, delivered expansively to us guests?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I try to save my snarkiness for my day job. Creative snarkiness is one of the many services I offer.
I read OSC's columns on a pretty regular basis. I never know - especially lately - if I'm going to "like" one of his political columns or not. His recent column on health care, for example, had holes, but it was a better starting point for discussion than a lot of what gets proposed, especially by the Republican majority these days (there was stuff in there that Denny Hastert from Illinois would really hate)
I think I'd be surprised if OSC expected everyone to agree with his columns, especially the political ones.
I find his review columns interesting and often helpful. Not always, but often.
Seriously - I'll probably quote him on his advice about "noble suicide stories" in writer workshops at a future date.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squicky - I would say that your last thread crossed the line between debating his ideas and criticizing him personally. And I don't think it's me being particularly sensitive to interpret it that way. "Doesn't he ever do research," is a rather pointed personal attack, one that I wouldn't call objective. Sure, you restrained yourself in not actually titling the thread that way, but admitting to that in the first sentence, you said it anyway.
I just don't understand why you would continue to read columns by someone that you considered a poor researcher and as inept as you continually claim he is.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps because he feels there are people out there that absent protest would think OSC was talking about something he knows about?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fugu - That could be a valid concern, I suppose. But personally I would say that this forum wouldn't be the proper place to do the warning of the innocent populace.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also liked that review of Million Dollar Baby. It's just when he says these things about gay people it pisses me off because I take it as personally as I'd take someone saying misinformed things about black people or any group for that matter. So, because of that, I stopped reading his world watch columns for the most part. I have enough things stressing me out as it is.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
I think that's understandable. There was nothing I can recall I agreed with in that column and yes, some of it I found offensive. But it didn't hit me personally. It's different when "you" are the one being talked about.
I live in that reality, although in relation to a different group. So I think I understand it as much as I can. I think I might react the same way myself, in fact.
Weak words of support, I know. But there they are.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most people here don't have an option regarding "warning the general populace". There is, however, a known large number of people who read OSC's essays at a higher rate than the general populace who visit this site, and read posts on this forum.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
First, is you're main concern here to find out why I read OSC's columns or to tell me I shouldn't have written what I did? Your lips say the first part, but your eyes say the second.
If the second, is it because he's OSC that you don't think I should have written it, or is it a general thing?
Do you disagree with my assessment? Do you think that OSC demonstrated in that column that he knew enough to talk authoritatively about what he was talking about?
Do you think that being concerned with people actually knowing what they're talking about even if it hurts their feelings is inappropriate?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
From the other thread, this is what A Rat Named Dog said about OSC:
quote:If you want to write Card a respectful e-mail and inform him of further reading he might want to do, he'll take it very well, and may follow your advice, and even change his opinion — I've seen a lot of correspondence in which he does exactly that.
That doesn't sound to me like someone who would prefer people to ignore rather than disagree with his opinions.
I can see the point that such disagreement should not be made with disdain. But in that thread at least, I don't see the disdain. It does appear to be, as Ela has said, a thoughtful conversation.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:First, is you're main concern here to find out why I read OSC's columns or to tell me I shouldn't have written what I did? Your lips say the first part, but your eyes say the second.
I don't think her lips ever said the first one at all, and I should know, I watch them intensely.
quote:If the second, is it because he's OSC that you don't think I should have written it, or is it a general thing?
Well I can't speak for Annie (yet ) so for me: disdain is never right, but it is even less right when you're directing it at the person whose forum (since you're unhappy with the house analogy) you're voicing it in.
quote:Do you disagree with my assessment? Do you think that OSC demonstrated in that column that he knew enough to talk authoritatively about what he was talking about?
Even if you were right, that's not an excuse for being rude. Disagreement doesn't mean rude, even calling people on not knowing what they're talking about doesn't have to be rude. Being right doesn't excuse your manner.
quote:That doesn't sound to me like someone who would prefer people to ignore rather than disagree with his opinions.
I can see the point that such disagreement should not be made with disdain. But in that thread at least, I don't see the disdain. It does appear to be, as Ela has said, a thoughtful conversation.
I agree, and I don't think anyone here (especially Annie who I can tell you disagrees with a lot of what OSC says) actually thinks you shouldn't be disagreeing with our host on his site, she's saying don't do so with disdain. Apparently you haven't noticed the disdain, Annie has, I can say I have, and others here have. Annie said:
quote:Opinions are one thing - express your opinions wherever you like. Disdain is another. Civil discourse is supposed to be just that.
posted
That is an important distinction, Im, and I concede that point. I was posting with the "don't be mean" intent, but didn't say a thing about it at first.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
There have been quite a few things he has written that I didn't agree with, but only one that I felt I should speak out against. I don;t buy into the belief that this is his living room, either...not only is he rarely here, but he is writing political opinions. Often time in a manner that is tailor designed to draw such critisims.
I do think very highly of him and his writing skills, but not so highly of his political views..or those of them that I have read about, anyway.
If he didn't want a discourse on the topics he chose, he wouldn't be writing about those topics in the first place.
I don't think it is OK to be rude, although everyone here has gotten caught up in the moment before, I am sure...sometimes it is easy to get all worked up about his views....that is the point, I think, to create discourse.
The only time I believe that I have commented about his views in a derogatory manner is when he said that it was unamerican to not vote for Ms. Rice, and was kin to aiding and abetting terrorists...and I stand by my views on that.
I feel that the right to dissent is uniquely American in it's conception, and to limit that or imply otherwise shows a lack of perception of what it is to be American....at least to me...
Other than that, I could care less what his views are, to be honest. Why should I? He is a writer, and a good one...but I don;t see him setting public policy any time soon......thank God...
posted
I'm not sure I understand the living room thing... Most of the "serious" topics would not have been welcome in my living room (well my mother was alive, she was an ettiquette crazy lady) if we didn't know the people well for multiple reasons.
(Ie. I was always told politics and religion were not good discussion topics when having people over, especially a large crowd or people you don't know very well. You never know where they lie and talking about it could make them -very- uncomfortable and alienate them).
If this was Mr. and Mrs. Card's living room and I was surrounded by people I didn't necessary know very well, I would be avoiding political, religious, etc. discussions like the plague.
I also agree that I doubt Mr. Card feels the need to have everybody nod their head in agreements, but he is human and nobody ever likes to be told "hey you're wrong" especially in a disdainful manner in front of many people. On that note, I did not read Mr. Squicky's thread/post(?).
Posts: 944 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think OSC's column that I guess I could have been construed as criticizing with my Arabic thread showed a lot more understanding than the average person has. It was less than what I have, but I've been sleeping with a spy for 14 years. OSC admits he "spins" stories, but mainly because he feels that is what all journalists are doing (and I happen to agree.) Anyway, I never opened Squicky's thread. Shame on everyone who did and was appalled by what they found.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:OSC admits he "spins" stories, but mainly because he feels that is what all journalists are doing (and I happen to agree.)
Do you agree that all journalists spin stories, or do agree that part of what it is to be a journalist is to spin a story, or do you agree that it's appropriate for OSC to spin stories because all of the other journalists are doing it?
btw, I opened Squicky's thread, and read most of it, and I'm a better person for it.
posted
It depends on whether you consider OSC a "journalist" or an editorializer. The purpose of editorials is to spin, now that you mention it. Since OSC never went to journalism school and hasn't learned their special ethics, I don't really see how he could be considered one. But as you can probably tell, I don't have a lot of respect for journalistic ethics. I mean, most of what I know is from "Absence of Malice" and "Broadcast News."
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It depends on whether you consider OSC a "journalist" or an editorializer. The purpose of editorials is to spin, now that you mention it. Since OSC never went to journalism school and hasn't learned their special ethics, I don't really see how he could be considered one.
I don't know if the purpose of editorial is to spin. It's like saying that the purpose of the govenment is to put people in jail. I mean, it does a lot of that, but I'm just not sure that's the purpose. Tom can probably give explanation of what it is to be an editorial, and maybe how it has come to be what you think it is.
I think only a small amount of journalists ever went to journalism school, and the "special ethics" varies from paper to paper like Christian denominations. But here is what worries me. I think you are lowering a moral bar to give OSC a special dispensation for his crimes against the truth. I don't care how many books you write or websites you sponsor. You don't get to lie.
posted
He just makes me want to challenge him. Especially when it comes to his wrong and misleading statements about gay people. Comparing them to children playing dress up? Spouting out neo-Freudian nonsense? It's frustrating to me because if someone said things like that about a group he belonged to, he would not like it. Heck, even if I wasn't queer, I'd be offended... It's just not polite. If he could give me a clear rheroric free reason why, perhaps I'd disagree in an openminded manner. But things like this make me see red. Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"But here is what worries me. I think you are lowering a moral bar to give OSC a special dispensation for his crimes against the truth."
I am thinking back to ninth grade English, when we had to learn Strunk and White. One is never supposed to write "In my opinion..." It is obvious, or should be, that it is your opinion, because you wrote it. That is how I see OSC's articles. They are his opinions. We may disagree with them, but I think he gets to have whatever opinion he has, and is committing no "crime against the truth."
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
