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.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
There are a lot of people that really enjoy bitching.
Apparently.
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
Agreed.
Posted by Fitz (Member # 4803) on :
If you don't enjoy people's bitching, you don't have to read it (or listen, as the case may be).
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
I quickly scan them for movie and restaurant reviews, and skip the rest.
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
Already done.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"I'd much rather ignore what I consider so below me and get over it."
Oh, my. I read that so differently the first time! It seemed so unAnnielike.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
That’s right! Scott can tell how it is!
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
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.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
I didn't see any malicious criticism. I see a thoughtful discussion.
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
It's their living room.
I'm trying to imagine someone starting a thread on sakeriver bashing saxy.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Frankly, I get the sense that Orson Scott Card would be much more offended by people agreeing with everything he says.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
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.
[ February 15, 2005, 03:43 PM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
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.
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
It would be politer and more civilized to respect this place as his living room.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
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 ]
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
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.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Very well put, Annie.
*gets on Annie's bandwagon and puts Elevation Tour 2001 in the DVD player*
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Elizabeth.
Annie: I repeat. I don't see "maliciousness"or "disdain," I see a thoughtful discussion.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
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.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
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.
[ February 15, 2005, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
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.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
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?
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
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.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
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.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Perhaps because he feels there are people out there that absent protest would think OSC was talking about something he knows about?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I don't see "maliciousness"or "disdain,"
I do. Right now.
[ February 15, 2005, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
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.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: It just seems a shame to see so many threads so repeatedly devoted to maliciously criticizing our host.
Tissue?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
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.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Syn,
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.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:It's their living room.
Huh? I don't see OSC wandering around here in his underwear...
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Foust,
You missed it. You had your head in the fridge looking for more guacamole.
[ February 15, 2005, 05:59 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
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.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Annie, So I've got some questions.
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?
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
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.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
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.
Hobbes
[ February 15, 2005, 09:13 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Hobbes I can understand (and agree with) all that.
But the title and opening post are not "don't disagree impolitely" but rather "if you disagree, ignore the columns".
There's quite a difference between those two positions.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Yep.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
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.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
In which case, I think we all more or less agree.
(I will resist the urge to post the group hug smilie though)
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
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...
And thank God I won't be, either.
[ February 15, 2005, 10:02 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Jaiden (Member # 2099) on :
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(?).
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
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.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
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.
[ February 16, 2005, 12:04 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
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."
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
quote:Anyway, I never opened Squicky's thread. Shame on everyone who did and was appalled by what they found.
You are an inspiration to me, MotherTree. I need to learn how to that.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
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.
[ February 16, 2005, 12:25 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
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. Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"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."
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
This reminds me, once again, of a conversation I had with a teacher many years ago...
Mr. House was my history teacher, and he said that Americans had it all wrong when they said that everyone is entitled to their opinion. He said it should have been "Everyone is entitled to an informed opinion." because that way people would have to at least do a little research on the issues before forming their own opinions about things, and that would be a good thing.
I understood what he was saying, but after thinking about it I asked "Mr. House, who gets to decide what is informed and what isn't informed then? You?"
He said that if people were informed, they would obviously be in agreement with him.
Just because someone disagrees with your conclusions doesn't give you the right to call them a liar, or to claim they have not done any research. If you want to refute their points, fine...do so.
But challenging them on things that are opinion based, such as faith based issues or political views, is tilting at windmills at best, and plain rude at worse.
I don't usually read any of the political opinions of OSC because I know from past experience that I don't agree with him on a lot of subjects. I have strong views on a lot of those issues myself, and he is unlikely to change my views on them....and he couldn't care less about my views, if he even knows I exist.
I think that it is OK to have different views than his, and to discuss the points he has made...even to refute them...but I never lose sight of the fact that those articles are his opinions , not irrefutable facts, and that he is entitled to them, as I am entitled to mine.
If not, then who decides what is informed enough?
[ February 16, 2005, 08:56 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Me. Duh.
That will be $.25.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
He once told me in an essay what I did or did not consider a war crime (he was wrong, btw). Asserting such things as basis for logical argument (as he did) is not within the bounds of good style.
Furthermore, where in Strunk and White did you get that? I can find it nowhere in the 1918 edition.
IMO, good style involves letting us know what you are supposing, what you are deriving, what is commonly considered true, and what you are getting from elsewhere. This is definitely true in any academic work, and makes sense for being true in normal writing.
Card's works seem to group everything into what is commonly considered true, what is derived, and what is retrieved from elsewhere. Yet they contain a bountitude of stuff he supposes with no particular factual basis (such as what I think a war crime is, or indeed, what is considered a war crime under international convention, which he got wrong in that same essay).
My writing is peppered with "seems to" and the like because I like to indicate where what I am talking about comes from. "Seems to" is an indicator of a supposition based on personal experience, for instance. I think many would agree that I can write fairly well.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"Furthermore, where in Strunk and White did you get that?"
Uh, let's see, my memory from twenty-five years ago says: Page 23!
I believe the 1918 version of "Elements of Style" is just Strunk, right? Try a later version with both Strunk and White as the authors.
Maybe it was not from Strunk and White, but I really think it was. In any case, I stand by the nugget of information, and I tend to cringe when I see IMHO in emails. I assume when someone writes something that it is their opinion. At least, I hope it is.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
See, I find it disturbing that people treat opinion as fact in writing. When something is in my opinion but seems like fact, I say so, and when its not in my opinion, I indicate that as well. Certain things are obviously opinion, such as "Chocolate is good", but if I say "high school GPA determines college success", I sound like I'm stating a fact, when I'm not.
[ February 16, 2005, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
Funny, I usually start threads when I agree with OSc's essays. I mean, I don't start threads when I disagree or am indifferent. Or don't read them, which has been the usual lately. Just don't have the time to be here much recently.
That said, I think he sees places like this as a forum for discussion, and I don't think he would find disagreement and discussion offensive unless it was deliberately insulting. The difference between "I think he may have overlooked/missunderstood X" and "He's a funny-looking hack who smells like cheese."
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
Elizabeth, I agree with you about the In My Opinion thing - both in principle and in vague memories of Strunk and White which is currently on my bookshelf at home.
It's a conversational disclaimer - "You can dismiss me if you want to, it's okay, this isn't important to me." Did you know that women use many time more disclaimers in speech and writing than men?
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
I read them precisely because they evoke such a strong reaction from me. They may not appeal to me but that does not mean they are worthless to me either. If you ignore what the opposition has to say than you are merely condemning yourself to intellectual stagnation.
[ February 16, 2005, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: the_Somalian ]
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
Kristine in another thread said she was surprised anyone still cared about meeting OSC. That is the biggest teller of the tone of the disagreements than anything else could be.
There's this section of the D&C that talks about the right way, the best way, to correct someone. Only do it when moved (when it's necessary, so not for kicks), but after the correction, increase the love and approval so they know your love/friendship is still strong.
In other words, after criticizing someone, however nicely meant, the onus is on the person to ensure it is clear that it is the viewpoint and not the individual that is being attacked.
Added: *sigh* A "not".
[ February 16, 2005, 11:37 AM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I wish.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I missed the essay that was addressed directly to fugu. I assume he made an assertion about a group that you identify with. Maybe you don't know everything about that group or you wouldn't identify with them. I mean, that assertion is made to members of my church often enough. But I don't know what group that would be unless it's the PC religion that he refers to.
(edit: There is no emphasis meant on you being the one the bring it up. Amazing how a tiny little simultaneous post changes things)LadyJane, it's interesting that you bring up that issue of showing an increase of Love after reproving someone. I guess we could say that OSC shows an increase of love by continuing to fund this site.
P.S. It dawns on me that most of the people who say OSC should tolerate or welcome people not agreeing with him invariably tend to be the people who insist he should agree with them. I don't agree with OSC on a few things, but only in one instance, before I really joined the forum, did I get all het up about him disagreeing with me.
[ February 16, 2005, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: mothertree ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"In other words, after criticizing someone, however nicely meant, the onus is on the person to ensure it is clear that it is the viewpoint and not the individual that is being attacked."
Is it your assertion, Katie, that OSC has done a good job of making this clear in his essays?
I certainly don't recall any apology for a particular "playing house" comment, for example, which is the absolute least I'd expect from anyone intending to be polite.
I submit that OSC only rarely has the population of Hatrack in mind when he writes his essays, and certainly does not think of us as being "in his living room" when he posts his essays here. If he did think that way, the only conclusion available is that he deliberately insults a huge number of us on a regular basis.
Frankly, I think he writes those essays out of a desire to play the demagogue, and very rarely considers the opposing viewpoint -- except to build up a straw man -- when he does so. It is inconceivable to me, for example, that he might have considered how the typical homosexual in a long-term relationship would feel about being told that they were "playing house" and yet write it anyway. I choose to believe that it just didn't occur to him, and that he writes his essays as a public figure and not as the guy who owns this site and enjoys our company.
As he's playing the role of a public figure, then, I don't find the responses here to be particularly extreme. Every now and then we get something particularly harsh and unwarranted, but there are lots of people out there who're quick to jump on the trolls when that happens. Hostile responses, though, are only to be expected when our host deliberately writes his columns in an inflammatory manner.
[ February 16, 2005, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
I'm not talking about what OSC does - I'm talking about how we treat him.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
And I'm saying that we treat him exactly as you might expect us to treat anyone who behaved in the same way.
Look, I like the guy a bit. I like his books a lot. I absolutely adore his wife and those of his kids I've had the privilege of chatting with. But I don't see why we should give him a free pass for acting like Bean Counter just 'cause he pays for the place.
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
That's not why we should do increase thing. We should do it because we're better than the alternative. Also, it weakens the criticism. You can't take the moral high ground if you're not acting morally, and if the criticism isn't coming from the moral high ground and is just political point-taking, then we've lost all civilization.
I'm NOT advocating keeping silent or restraining the criticism when you feel it is necessary. The way to criticize well/morally/effectively though, is to make it of the words or the viewpoint and not of the person, and to make sure the other person knows it.
Tom, you do that very well, and I know it because you criticize me when I need it, but I've never, ever felt personally attacked.
[ February 16, 2005, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Also, it weakens the criticism. You can't take the moral high ground if you're not acting morally, and if the criticism isn't coming from the moral high ground..."
It's been my impression, Katie, that the vast majority of the criticism of OSC's essays that's occurred on this site has been from a moral high ground.
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
Not if you're insulting the person you are correcting.
Moral rebuttal is not only sentiment being expressed, but the words in which it is said.
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
I think that OSC should be given more respect here on his forum.
If you're visiting somebody's house and they act like an ass so much that you can't stand it, then the prudent thing to do is to leave. Choosing to not fight with him is part of being a good guest.
I guess it boils down to the fact that many people here believe that they own hatrack more than OSC does. In my view, that is extremely disrespectful to our gracious (much more gracious than I probably would be) hosts.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Not if you're insulting the person you are correcting."
I think this happens less often than you believe, Katie. It's hard to tell the difference, perhaps, because as the single author of an essay it's hard to pretend that you aren't dismissing his personal opinion when you criticize it -- but, again, most of the criticism that I've seen has been essay-related and opinion-related and not of the "OSC is an ugly stupid-head" sort. And, by and large, it's been considerably less offensive and inflammatory than his own columns.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
You know, if you read my thread, or the couple of other instances where I've been unkind to OSC, you'll see that I lay out my problem and then kay out my support why I see it that way. I really wish people would treat me in a similar way.
Like, actually coming out and saying what their problem is instead of hiding it behind a disdainful - if you're going to call someone out for being rude I don't think starting off suggesting that they are pathetic helps your case - pretense. Or, I don't know, maybe answering the questions I ask to clarify what the complaint is rather than say "That doesn't matter because you're mean." As far as I can see, what I did on the offending thread was lay out and then reinforce my claim that OSC was displaying poor intellectual integrity. Now I'm told either that's wrong because OSC pays for this site or it was a personal attack or that it might be ok to challenge this but that I was wrong because I was disdainful.
I didn't feel disdainful what I wrote it; I certainly didn't stray from my point about intellectual integrity to in any other way disparage OSC. Other people seem to think that I wasn't disdainful and in fact provided reasoned commentary. What reason are you offerring for why I should accept your judgement that I was being disdainful? If you back up or even define your accusations, we can discuss them. Right now, from my perspective, what we've got is pretty equivilent to you calling me names, and I don't see any reason why I should care or change the way I do things.
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
Then we are at an impasse.
Let me try this: Squicky, you have many valuable things to say, but your words seem like they hold disdain and are insulting our host. It would be great if you could change that. I like that you take so much effort with your posts - that really shows. That's cool.
Tom: Hmm...Kristine was surprised that, basically, anyone here still likes him. That says something. However civilly intended (and I do not agree with you that they are), they do not come across that way.
[ February 16, 2005, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
What are you talking about, Kat? Where did Kristine say that?
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
Boskone thread.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Man, that makes me sad. Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
I wonder if she's reading this thread. I mean, to me, what she said in the Boskone thread could imply that she thinks people have been insulting, or it could just imply that she thinks people don't like OSC. Those aren't actually the same thing.
It's too bad we don't know whether or not OSC actually feels insulted. Well, presumably he's not as I doubt he's read many of the threads in question, so I suppose it's whether or not he would be insulted if he were to read the threads. I mean, this whole discussion would be unnecessary if we knew that he didn't feel insulted. Not that I'm trying to say how things should be, but one nice thing about the spin-offs is that if you make me, Jon Boy, John, mack, Tick, etc, angry on our own boards, there's really no doubt about it, and no one else really needs to stick up for us.
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
I think he has read at least some of it, because the last time he posted, he was defensive. I hate that the board is a place OSC feels like he needs to be defensive.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Most of us came here cause we were fans of OSC's writing. I would venture to say most of us are still fans of OSC's writing. I don't think that means we have to agree with everything OSC writes, or refrain from stating that disagreement respectfully, which I think is what has been done, for the most part.
I can understand Kristine feeling a little hurt by it, though. Even respectful disagreement can be upsetting when it is directed at someone you love.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
It's interesting to note that the people that OSC criticizes in his opinion columns are not the type of people who have been leaving this forum offended and hurt by the negativity lately.
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
I don't agree that the disagreement has been respectful.
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
OSC not being insulted by what is said on this board would be a herculean effort that few humans could manage.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
But to follow up on that, the idea that I did something wrong because someone got angry or hurt or otherwise upset because of my remarks is exactly what OSC was talking about in his column and what I was talking about in my thread. That's the crap self-esteem idea that we shouldn't do something because it'll make someone feel bad. I expect that if he read what I wrote and it actually affected him OSC would feel bad. I said he was wrong and that he was wrong because he didn't know what he was talking about. Heck, I likened him to the deluded terrible singers from American Idol. That should upset someone. OSC and I are both saying that not only isn't that a good enough reason to refrain from something, but that doing so is very detrimental in the long run.
I believe that my description is accurate. I've made a case for it and this case is certainly up for disputation. In contrast, what we have here is people offering characterizations without and support. They think I was intentionally being nasty. But they've offered me no reason why I should accept their judgement over my own or that of other people who don't think that. And, it's not like we don't have a history. I mean, jeez, kat accused me of being sexist once and has never taken it back or appologized. Even if I was concerned with what people thought of me, I don't see why I should accept her judgement uncritically.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
That's really too bad. When things get argumentative, everyone gets defensive and everyone gets a little put-out. That problem isn't solved, though, by continued arguing.
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
Okay, we are back to the impasse.
I don't think how someone feels determines moral rightness, but I do think that if you care about someone, your actions should reflect consideration for their feelings. You likened him to a bad American Idol singer and meant for him to be hurt by that. You've lost any moral ground you might have had.
Added: Wow. I do remember the sexist thing - you were talking to everyone else in the thread and I was trying to figure out you weren't talking to me. That was the difference between me and the other posters that I could see. Since you were not being sexist, I apologize for thinking/saying you were.
I would think you'd be much more upset about the Lost in Translation picture. (I miss Noemon.)
[ February 16, 2005, 01:09 PM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:It's interesting to note that the people that OSC criticizes in his opinion columns are not the type of people who have been leaving this forum offended and hurt by the negativity lately.
Please explain this comment, Annie. It is not at all clear to me what you mean.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Ela, I meant that there have been a good number of people leaving Hatrack of late because of the negativity and critical tone and change in atmosphere. They're not leaving because OSC wrote something in an opinion column that made them feel bad - they left because of us; because they felt that they were no longer among friends.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Annie, I disagree. I don't get defensive. I'm not defensive here, nor am I put-out. I'm not the type to keep asking, "Was that about me? Are you talking about me? You better not have implied something bad about me." I honestly don't care. You can think I'm a bad person as much as you want. I'm just asking you to make a case with definitive statmements and support so that we can discuss it, rather than the formless labeling that you're doing now.
There's plenty to be resolved by arguing, if it's done responsibly and people don't put their emotions ahead of the ideas.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I'm glad you're not hurt. That wasn't my intent. However, a lot of people are. Maybe I'm just a bleeding-heart idiot, but I'm often hurt by people's quick and relentless attacks of my ideas here. It gets to the point that I avoid making points in discussions where I know my lack of expertise will be ridiculed and I will feel belittled. I know I'm not the only one that feels this way.
It's one thing to be a thick-skinned debator; however, this is not a debate. It's a community intended for polite, reasonable, discussion among friends.
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
"First we assume the elephant is a sphere..."
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote: I'm just asking you to make a case with definitive statmements and support so that we can discuss it, rather than the formless labeling that you're doing now.
Formal debate is not the only form of communication.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
If the guy is willfully shading the truth, I'm ready to call the quality of his person into question. It's an insult.
Do you want to know why men are scum? You want to know about the soft bigotry of low expectations? In half of the office jobs I've worked, forty-year old women assistants make excuses for fifty-five year old dudes. And now I come here to find mothertree ready to excuse his lying because apparently all dudes (read: journalists) lie.
You can talk about pop music and television and sports being bad influences on our youth, but I've figured out a way get around all of that, the biggest, most pervasive "meme" as David would call it that confuses me to no end is why we are so quick to excuse the worthlessness of dudes. There is a class structure that's work here, and I don't know how it is buttressed by holy books and laws, but there is something wrong.
[ February 16, 2005, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
quote:If the guy is willfully shading the truth. I'm ready to call the quality of his person into question. It's an insult.
Do you apply this to yourself? You do it all the time. You've done it twice in the past 24 hours that Dag has called you on.
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
Wow. You turned a discussion about treating our host with respect into a sexist argument about sexism in just one post.
If only you could use that power for good.
[ February 16, 2005, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: AntiCool ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
You know, OSC pretty routinely calls political beliefs that I hold, movies that I like, and the people that hold those beliefs or like those movies "shallow," "loathsome," "deeply stupid," "hateful," "morally bankrupt," and "pretentious." What I don't understand is why it bothers me so much when he does that. I mean, it's not like he's my friend, or even an acquaintance. I've never even met the guy. He's not talking specifically about me; I'm quite certain that he's not even aware of my existence. So why should I care when he says things like that? In fact, even if he were talking about me, he doesn't know me. So it still shouldn't bother me. I just don't get it.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
I think it's because he's someone you admire. I know that when someone I think is cool insults stuff that I like, it makes me feel stupid. Like they wouldn't like me if they met me because of what I like.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
If you don't like the things I post, you don't have to read them.
How many times since I've been here have I seen that, and had it met with active resistance and objection?
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
OK, yeah. I'm done with this.
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
Ryuo --
I think you're right.
One of my dreams is to have dinner with Scott and his wife.
One of my nightmares is to do that, and for them to think that I am a bore.
[ February 16, 2005, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: AntiCool ]
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
You know, part of the reason that everyone feels so willing to insult OSC is because none of us really know him, not even as superficially as we know someone on the forum.
If you plugged in someone else's name in OSC's, like TomDavidson or Bob_Scopatz or saxon75 or Annie, everyone would get mad and defend this person and they'd be there to defend themselves.
It's easy to get in a mean-spirited discussion about OSC because we only have his son and his wife here to defend him, and they're not necessarily the kinds of people who will bring holy wrath down upon our heads.
I routinely disagree with Orson Scott Card's columns. I was deeply hurt when I read his article on homosexuality, not because of who he is, but because of what he said. Since then, I don't read his political articles. I'm not saying that that's the answer. But it helps me sleep at night or whatever.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Annie, The one interaction I can remember we had in a serious topic, you claimed something that I was pretty sure wasn't true, so I said that I didn't think it was true and provided facts that countradicted it. You then accused me of making it into a pissing match, an assertion which I disputed, and then withdrew from the conversation. If that's what you consider being ridiculed for not knowing enough, I don't think we agree on that either.
I don't think I set out to ridicule people. When I say that I think you're wrong and then set out reasons why I think that, for me, the primary thing I doing is talking about ideas, not you as a person. I'm sorry if people take it that way, but I don't think that's a problem with me.
And from what I've seen, I'm one of the few people on Hatrack who expresses concerns about people knowing something about what they're talking about. I really do wish more people would be concered about this, again, for the very reasons that OSC lays out in his column.
When I think it's important, I do try to help people out here and I've more than once come to the defense of someone who was being hurt by many other posters. However, I don't bring that as a primary concern when we're debating. If you can't handle me disagreeing with you and laying out reasons why I disagree, if that makes you too upset to continue, you don't belong in a debate, and I don't think that's my fault. In this case, if you can't lay out a case with definitions and support and instead are going to throw labels at people and talk about your hurt feelings, again, you don't belong in a debate. If you think that I've crossed some line, show me the line and show me why you think I crossed it. I'll consider your argument. Right now, I've got nothing to consider except that you think I'm a bad guy.
I'm not here to talk with my friends. I'd be doing a lot less pussyfooting around if I were. Nonetheless, I think I'm somewhat valuable to the community and I do get something out of it. I try to protect it from time to time. I've never gotten a warning from the mods. All that is to say, you're probably not going to be able force me to change (although it's completely up to the mods if I don't belong here anymore). You can try to convince me and I'll listen. Or, to echo your disrespectful title, you don't have to read what I write.
I think that quality and intelletual integrity are important. If that offends or upsets you, I am sorry, but I'm not going to stop valuing them. I don't try to hurt or offend anyone, but I put a lot of things higher than poeple's feelings getting hurt, again for the reasons laid out in OSC's article.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
If OSC made a mistake in a column, I hope someone can point it out politely.
If someone points it out politely, I hope OSC can take that advice gracefully.
In Squicky's thread, he points out some mistakes OSC has made in two columns. He does not do this politely in my opinion-- because he caveats the title of his thread, 'How much research does OSC put into his columns?' with this:
quote:that title was much nicer than what I was thinking, which was pretty much "Does OSC do any research for his columns?"
At the outset, Squicky's thread is a veiled attack thread. It has progressed, somewhat, to a consideration of the topic of Self-esteem research, but it certainly started as on the offense.
I would suggest, and hope, that perhaps if similar instances were to arise in the future, one could more amiably point out the errors, without denigrating our host. Or, if one is incapable of that, one should find another virtual hut to vomit on.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
I think you are right, Ryuko. For me, it is similar to th realization, in my teens, that my dearly beloved grandmother is racist beyond belief. I went through a hard time trying to figure out how I could love her so, and loathe her beliefs. The fact is, I can. And it is the same with Orson Scott Card. I disagree with some things that he says, but I love the man's mind. Period. I love his literature, I love his devotion to his family, and I love his kindness. When I disagree with what he has to say, and sometimes with how he says it, I still listen. There are exactly zero people in ths world whom I agree with completely. There are oodles of people that I love and respect.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Scott, As I stated in some of the recent posts in that thread, the attack on OSC was part of the whole message. I considered it important to show exactly how I thought he was buying into the very crap self-esteem that he was decrying and tat because of this, he looked (to people who actually knew the essentials of what he was talking aboubt) similar to the horrible singers who go on American Idol convinced that they're great. I think it's even worse in OSC's case because it's not a lack of talent that's holding back, but rather a lack of rigor (the same thing he unsubstantively accuses the people who work in my field of in his article). That's a central point to the whole thread.
Of course, there is also the mre specific issue that I think OSC has demonstrated that he can't be trusted to provide accurate information. That goes beyond the specific problems in the column and I think that it's a legitmate criticism. Shouldn't we be conerned about the accuracy of a source? If my assessment is correct, hasn't OSC shown that he's an untrustworthy source?
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
quote:the attack on OSC was part of the whole message.
You were rude. You are now saying it is okay to be rude because you meant to be rude. It's all right that you threw up on him because at least you aimed.
[ February 16, 2005, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I still think it's not at all clear that, except for the "self-reporting" bit, he was talking at all about the people who work in your field. His criticisms were aimed at people abusing the work of the people in your field.
I mean, he's talking about the work of people in your field favorably the entire time he praises the SA article.
Dagonee
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, Not the way I read it, he's not. He's saying, thank goodness after 20+ years of blindly accepting this crap, someone finally called people on it.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
It was so interesting (read: surprising) to me to have just finished the Ender Saga and find Hatrack River to realize that OSC was a Mormon! ( i know, i know, surprise! but we really shouldn't ignore the truth any longer)
I thought, truthfully, that OSC was an atheist, and his books, especially Xenocide, helped me hone my own ideas on the subject. Imagine how strange it is to find out that one of the greatest atheistic writers you know is RELIGIOUS! (audible gasp from audience)
My point is, I may not have been the only person who felt they had found a kindred spirit in OSC's writing -- only to discover he was writing *ideas* and not necessarily his own, but ones that worked well within the context of his stories.
And because of that, there may be quite a few people here who actually don't have that much in common with OSC, and his political/social views on things therefore offend.
I know I was hurt by the homosexuality article, among others, and truthfully it's taken a lot for me to separate the MAN whose writings I worshipped and the man who hosts this forum and lives his own life.
I guess I'm a bit like Plikt in that sense Except not in the insult-Card's-wife-so-brutally-right-before-his-death-that-his-sister-smacks-me-a-good-one way. Just in the blind worshipfullness way
I think one of the reasons that OSC has so many strong opponents of his opinion writing on this board is because there are quite a few people on this board that may have found things to hold on to in his novel writing that aren't core beliefs in his own world.
But I frellin' love his books, man.
[ February 16, 2005, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: Leonide ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
kat, The entire disagreement on this thread is that I don't accept that I was being rude in this context. You can say it as often as you like, but that doesn't make it true. Make a case, define your terms, and we can talk about it, but all you're doing, from my perspective, is calling me names.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, Not the way I read it, he's not. He's saying, thank goodness after 20+ years of blindly accepting this crap, someone finally called people on it.
I agree that's what he's saying. But I think "this crap" is not the work of the people in the field (with the exception of the self-reporting bit), and "people" is not the people in your field.
Dagonee
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
You admit you made an attack on him and deliberately called him one of the bad American Idol singers. That's rude, Squick! However justified you feel in punching someone, that doesn't change that you just punched someone.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
kat, The entire disagreement on this thread is that I don't accept that I was being rude in this context. You can say it as often as you like, but that doesn't make it true. Make a case, define your terms, and we can talk about it, but all you're doing, from my perspective, is calling me names.
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
Rudeness is defined by culture. If people think you are being rude, you are being rude, even if you don't mean to.
At that point, you can say "I don't care" or try to be more respectful.
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
Impasse again. I have made the case. I haven't seen you give an inch, not even to acknowledge my apology.
Insults as a persuasion technique has a miserable record.
[ February 16, 2005, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
It's also a way for the Man to keep you down, right Anti-Cool. Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Well, I think what really matters is whether Card would think Squicky's being rude. Which I don't think any of us have the right to speak about.
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
I think that respect and politeness serve a very important and good function in any society.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
But to follow up on that, the idea that I did something wrong because someone got angry or hurt or otherwise upset because of my remarks is exactly what OSC was talking about in his column and what I was talking about in my thread. That's the crap self-esteem idea that we shouldn't do something because it'll make someone feel bad. I expect that if he read what I wrote and it actually affected him OSC would feel bad. I said he was wrong and that he was wrong because he didn't know what he was talking about. Heck, I likened him to the deluded terrible singers from American Idol. That should upset someone. OSC and I are both saying that not only isn't that a good enough reason to refrain from something, but that doing so is very detrimental in the long run.
I believe that my description is accurate. I've made a case for it and this case is certainly up for disputation. In contrast, what we have here is people offering characterizations without and support. They think I was intentionally being nasty. But they've offered me no reason why I should accept their judgement over my own or that of other people who don't think that. And, it's not like we don't have a history. I mean, jeez, kat accused me of being sexist once and has never taken it back or appologized (oh wait she just did). Even if I was concerned with what people thought of me, I don't see why I should accept her judgement uncritically.
edit: AntiCool, It could (and likely was) considered rude by the crap self-esteem advocates to fail a kid on a test. That doesn't mean it actually was rude or that we therefore shouldn't fail kids on tests. If we were in a different, non-debate/discussion context (say at an Endercon or something) it would be rude for me talk like I did, unless OSC opened up with something like his article. In this context, I don't think it was inappropriate. If you consider saying something negative about someone an attack, I did attack him. But I don't think that saying something negative about someone is necessarily rude and thus I rejct that attacking someone under that definition is necessarily rude.
[ February 16, 2005, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I'm deeply interested in matters of propriety. I think they can open the door to the dignity of man or mask all levels of corruption.
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
Squicky, you're being rude now. Reposting posts isn't a conversation - you aren't respecting or listening to the people who are talking to you. This is not a conversation.
I'm done.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
kat, you're being rude now. Merely repeating things that you've said before and were answered isn't a conversation - you aren't respecting or listening to the people who are talking to you. This is not a conversation.
I'm still here though.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
I think we should pause and have a quick 'love-fest'.
I appreciate everyone here and wish no harm to anyone. Here's to everyone not leaving Hatrack! Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
The attacks of the 'nice people' on what they perceive to be the 'less nice people' are a major contributer to me not being around much lately and sticking to non-issue threads. And I know I'm not the only one.
It doesn't have anything to do with OSC's opinions, which I don't pay a lot of attention to. I mean, about writing and stuff, sure. He know's his stuff, no doubt. Views on homosexual marriage or whatever... I don't really pay much attention to what toothpaste my Optometrist reccommends, either. It might be the best toothpaste and he might be right, but that's not why I go see him.
I tyhink we my be slipping into some common social fallacies here. I found this article very enlightening, and I'd like to share it before I politely witdraw from the thread.
"Rudeness is defined by culture. If people think you are being rude, you are being rude, even if you don't mean to."
By this standard, can we all agree that OSC has been very rude to many of the people on this site?
Can we agree, then, that many of the people on this site -- to whom he has never apologized -- have a right to be hurt and angry, and to address the fact that he has hurt them?
If we cannot agree to this, on what grounds can anyone possibly criticize someone here for "hurting" or "attacking" Card?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I was never as surprised as some to learn that OSC was a Mormon (though like you, Leonide, I learned it years after reading the Ender novels), and perhaps stranger still that I hold the opinion that many of the ideas expressed in the Ender saga-the whole saga-are in fact compatible with Card's religious beliefs.
When I take a step back, so to speak, I realize that perhaps it should be surprising, but it still isn't. *shrug*
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
I didn't mention that in fact, upon reflection, I realized that the idea of the eternal souls "aiuas" and many other aspects of the Saga are very LDS in nature -- in fact, I'm sure that's why so many Mormons are attracted to his works and come to post in his forum.
I was merely speaking from the point of view of someone who got something completely different from what may have been the intended ideology.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I'm very tempted to delete this thread. I don't see many positive outcomes happening.
Let me know if you object and I'll keep it.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
If you delete the thread Annie, you delete *everyone's* posts...not just the ones that upset you.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Don't delete the thread. It also deletes the thoughts of many other people.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I'm not saying that anyone's posts upset me.
And I'll leave the thread up.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:You can say it as often as you like, but that doesn't make it true.
Why not just stick your hands in your ears and say, "Nyahh, nyahh, nyahh!"
At least then those of us who might have taken you seriously won't be fooled into thinking you have an actual point. Or argument.
You know, Squicky, you can say as often as you like that you don't think that the living room metaphor for Hatrack is appropriate. However-- the definition for what Hatrack is or isn't is ultimately in OSC's hands. He has not called this place a mall, a public square, or a meeting house-- he HAS called it his living room, I think.
What do you plan to do about that?
Tom-- I think you're smart enough to know why OSC has not apologized to individual people for comments directed at a general group.
Else we'd have to expect an apology from every person who called Mormons or traditional Christians bigots for their stance on homosexual marriage.
And what a stir that would create.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:But to follow up on that, the idea that I did something wrong because someone got angry or hurt or otherwise upset because of my remarks is exactly what OSC was talking about in his column...
You keep saying this Squicky, but in fact what OSC was talking about wasn't that you should be brutally honest with everyone, but that you shouldn't give false praise. He even explains in detail (for such a short column) about giving real praise and then mixing in criticism. "That was a really good round-off Billy, and you moved skillfully into the cartwheel, though maybe we'll have to work on the finish there a little." Not: "Did you practice at all for this routine?" I don't think you were right (or wrong, I don't know enough on the subject) but being right is not an excuse for being rude.
Now I know you've said you didn't think it was rude, but I really don't understand how "Does he do any research?" can be construed as anything but rude. I know I've said things here I'm not proud of and should've rephrased, especially when I was upset, which is more likely to happen when something I'm deeply involved in is attacked, and if that's what happened then that's fair, apologize and move on. I take it though, that's not what you were claiming happened, and like I said, I just can't understand how it wasn't rude.
[Disclaimer: The example OSC gives are for children, since that was what the article was about, I don't think we have to take the same approach with adults, though I don't think it would hurt, but being rude or insulting isn't OK no matter the age.]
[EDIT: Squicky, in thinking on it, it seems you've tried to explain why what you said wasn't rude, but everytime I read it all I'm able to see is why you were right, which is, as I've said, not the same thing. So if you're dissparring of a way of showing why it wasn't rude, there's some helpful advice as to where my hang-up is. ]
Hobbes
[ February 16, 2005, 03:55 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
OSC may have called Hatrack his living room, but that doesn't mean he treats it as such.
Should we react to what he says it is, or how he treats it? Because I think the warehouse analogy is a little more appropriate.
Not to mention the fact that there are different kinds of "living rooms" -- for instance, the living room in the house I grew up in was the family gathering place with an inviting atmosphere that everyone (everyone, even Dad) felt comfortable chatting/hanging out in.
Whereas my grandmother's living room had a floor for the kids to play on, but nobody better sit on any of the chairs or touch her knickknacks or DEATH!
What kind of living room is this in OSC's eyes?
[ February 16, 2005, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: Leonide ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
If this forum his his living room I don't think reproducing copies of the essays he publishes in a conservitive newspaper on the front-page to be equivelant to lecturing to those of us assembeled here. Or even the same as the posting we're doing here.
Hobbes Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
As the owner of Hatrack: The Warehouse, OSC has every right to post millions of inflamatory articles in every possible location on the site.
If I've taken anything he's said personally, it was with the understanding that he never meant to attack me personally.
I don't think anyone's arguing that OSC is purposefully singling out Hatrackers and mocking them in his articles.
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
quote:OSC may have called Hatrack his living room, but that doesn't mean he treats it as such.
You really can't blame him. If people started crapping in my living room, I'd stop using it as such also.
But that's no excuse to keep on crapping there.
[ February 16, 2005, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: AntiCool ]
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Except that he never really spent time in the living room, and not everyone craps in it.
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
Of course not everybody craps in it.
But too many people do.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Hey anticool, just wondering where you live, you seem to have mistyped it in your profile or the forum software didn't like what you typed (it just reads " I' " )
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Hypothetically speaking, is it possible for me to crap in my own living room?
Lets say I'm hosting a party and invite all my friends, and tell them to invite all THEIR friends, and that its ok for the friends to invite their own friends... and then after a few hours of the party, I call everyone together, say "As host, I'd like to say a few words... everyone who thinks that my carpet is an ugly color is a traitor to america. Not only that, those people are illogical, and don't have a reason for thinking that my carpet is an ugly color. Oh, and I'm sorry, but all your friends will be at this party for the next 3 years, and enjoy the punch."
Am I crapping in my own living room?
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
This has not happened.
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
If you're concerned about OSC's manners, prove you are better than that by acting better than that.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I'd argue that it has.
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
No matter what OSC does or says, it cannot make being rude okay.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Lady Jane-
Your hypocricy astounds me.
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
Oh, I know I'm rude. I never said I'm not. I was horribly rude to Irami in the other thread when I posted the eye-rolling smiley. He's welcome to call me on it.
I am much better about it than I used to be, though.
Are you saying that you're not?
[ February 16, 2005, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
I think Hobbe's analogy is much closer to the mark. He hasn't rounded us up -- he's gone and published an article in a conservative newsletter, and left some copies on the coffee table.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:I don't think reproducing copies of the essays he publishes in a conservitive newspaper on the front-page to be equivelant to lecturing to those of us assembeled here. Or even the same as the posting we're doing here.
This is a very important point. He doesn't come into the forum and start topics on these things. He writes his column and provides a link to it on the front page of his site. We are welcome to come and register for his forums to discuss books, films, food and culture, and we think that railing about how uninformed our host is is appropriate because we're being scholarly.
You'll notice that he's the only one in this scenario (myself included) that's not arguing about anything.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Paul is a peach.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
No, I'm not saying I'm not rude. But when I call people on being rude, I tend to include myself in the list of people who ARE rude. You portray yourself as a righteous hall monitor... yet you're one of the most consistently rude posters, and very rarely get called on it.
ANd hypocricy, to me, is far far worse then being rude.
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
ScottR does a much better job of chastising people because he's never rude. I really am much better than I used to be.
Does attacking the messenger mean you've decided the message isn't rebuttable?
[ February 16, 2005, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:very rarely get called on it.
She's called on it far more often than a host of far more rude people here.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I don't think Katie has ever proclaimed herself more righteous than anyone else. She's very down-to-earth and admits her failings often.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
...and, I'm getting sucked into it again. Crap. I don't want to argue anymore.
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
*hugs* Neither do I. I've been here all day because we're between projects at work - time to distract myself.
I'm off the read last week's Lost recap on TWOP in preparation for tonight.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
If he left copies of his missives about on the coffee table, I would feel justified in picking up a copy, reading it over, then showing it to the other people in the living room. I might even be worked up about it.
I personally would not say "What a loser-face, look at his stupid ideas!" but i might say something to the effect of: "I don't think this was very well researched" and I would even bring it up to the host himself.
I was never arguing *for* insulting OSC. Everyone who says that he is insulting and condescending in his articles is right. And everyone who says that doesn't give us the right to be rude to him is right, too.
These are simple, basic rules we all learned in grade school. You don't have to stoop to someone's insulting level in order to converse with them. But you also don't have to put up with it silently.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Honestly, I don't get chastised for being rude, nearly often enough.
You people are seriously slacking.
-Bok
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Bokonon, you really didn't need to say that so rudely. You disappoint me. . . . . . . . . . . Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
See, now you're just being patronizing, Belle. I need more sincerity. You rude, uh, rude-ster.
-Bok
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*meanders in and repeats question about Anticool's location*
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
OK, I've updated my profile just for you. Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:If he left copies of his missives about on the coffee table, I would feel justified in picking up a copy, reading it over, then showing it to the other people in the living room. I might even be worked up about it.
I personally would not say "What a loser-face, look at his stupid ideas!" but i might say something to the effect of: "I don't think this was very well researched" and I would even bring it up to the host himself.
I was never arguing *for* insulting OSC. Everyone who says that he is insulting and condescending in his articles is right. And everyone who says that doesn't give us the right to be rude to him is right, too.
Which would put you firmly out of the scope of this thread. No one's saying don't disagree, they're saying, don't be insulting. I think both sides are arguing past each other, or have spiraled down into ad hominid attacks. Really I think the unresolved debate (that in anyways parallels this thread's original topic) is what constitutes rude.
Hobbes Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
The idea that seems to be being floated around here is that OSC has carte blanche to be a turd in whatever manner he likes, yet people can't respond to his stuff in kind. Yeah, he owns the site. So, what. If he doesn't like what people are saying about his stuff, he or his representatives have the right to kick people off of the site or ban them. Or better yet, he can jump into the thread and respond. What a thought, eh?
As far as I'm concerned, if he doesn't want to respond, this is his problem.
If people who are offended by what's being said by others about his stuff are offended, this is, likewise, their problem. They should jump in and call bullshit on what's being said, or say something. Hiding behind the fact that he owns the site as reason to not post aggressive posts about what he writes is lame and weak.
I'm glad OSC has enough respect for other people's opinions not to ban them for responding to him in the same way he 'converses' with them. That's fair. That's good. That is right. To do otherwise, to ban people for responding to him for doing what he does would be hypocritical. For others to call others out for responding to him in a similiar fashion is also hypocritical.
To sum it all up, if you don't like what someone says, respond or don't. Reply or don't. Answer stupidity and rudeness, if there is any, with facts and reason.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: You'll notice that he's the only one in this scenario (myself included) that's not arguing about anything.
That's not necessarily a good thing. I strongly suspect that people would be less inclined to criticize the man -- or his beliefs -- if he bothered to defend his statements. It's all very well for him to do the public demagogue thing; that's perfectly normal and acceptable among pundits. What's unusual is the expectation that he is entitled to the same kind of audience-author bond extended to bloggers and authors who're more active on their own websites. He's simply not here enough to get the whole "personal bond" thing working for him -- and by not responding to (and possibly not even reading) criticisms of his articles, he presents the impression -- perhaps a correct one -- that he honestly doesn't care what is said about him here.
I'm inclined to believe the latter, myself. If he cared, I would have expected him to issue an apology a while ago. I'm not just speaking on other people's behalf, either; a while back, OSC completely misunderstood something I said, believing it to be an insult to his wife, and came back with a furious post that basically called me -- specifically and individually -- a waste of human life. I sent a hasty E-mail to the Cards to explain the situation, providing them with context, and Kristine replied quickly enough that she had not been offended, was not offended, and had in fact understood my original meaning. OSC, sadly, never replied.
I continue to use his living room because I like the people here, and I believe I'd like him as well under most circumstances. But I think anyone accusing anybody of being excessively rude to him is, quite frankly, missing the forest for the trees.
[ February 16, 2005, 08:36 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Kat-- Don't paint me all in white-- i've been rude to lots of people.
But because people think I'm made of Frivel and Schleck, it goes over better than I intend.
Which is probably a good thing.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I think OSC would love to post more on the forum but it would cut into his mystery novel reading time. And some of the other stuff he reviews. I think he writes books sometimes too.
I actually don't find reading mystery novels at all appealing. I tend to skip over those parts of the reviews. Also the parts about music (ever since that "give country a try" debacle) and also the parts about restaurants/city councilmen that don't exists outside of Greensboro.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Hobbes, Of the things that I thought people might be taking as rude, that one was pretty low on the list. Let me explain why.
First, it was a relatively mild statment of my own opinion. What I wrote was what I thought. I read the medical colum and then the self-esteem one and I thought, "Does OSC do any research for his columns?" I specifically didn't make that the title of the thread, however, because I wanted it to be clear that it wasn't a foregone conclusion, even for myself. I wondered about it and leaned one way, but I don't actually read all that many of OSC's columns and for all I know, in the past he's done an obviously more thorough job of research. I didn't want the conversation to start with that as an accepted basis, so I didn't make it the title. But I did think it was important to convey the impression that I was starting from, which was that OSC had a particular stance of the self-esteem issue, read one article about it as he was perusing Scientific American, and decided to write a column on it without doing any more looking into it. I don't think saying that I wonder if he does any research based on that impression is something I shouldn't have done, nor do I think it was rude.
Second, I certainly said much more derogatory things later on in the thread. It's not even necessary a bad thing that someone doesn't do research for something. I almost never do research for anything I write on Hatrack. I doubt many people do. Were I to write a column on self-esteem similar to OSC's, I wouldn't do any research for it. I already know more than enough about that topic to speak about it authoritatively in that context without needing a research backup. I'm sure there's plenty of things OSC could write about in that context without needed to go and look things up about it and do a perfectly adequate job. My much more negative complaint was that it appeared that he needed to do research on this particular issue because he knew very little about it, but that for whatever reasons (and I think it's partially due to OSC's unchallenged esteem of his own intelligence that makes him think that his ideas have quality without needed support) he didn't do this research.
That's why I don't think that this comment was rude. I don't even think my treatment was "brutally honest". I wasn't going to flinch away from saying that I think he approached this situation in a very wrong manner, but aside from reiterating that I thought he did this wrong so that people couldn't shy away from it, I don't think I was really all that harsh. There might be some small stuff, but I don't see how I could have expressed the content that I did in a significantly nicer way without resorting to equivocation and passive-agressiveness. I don't have much repsect for either of these, nor do I think that they would have made my point any nicer really, although it might have appeared so on the surface.
[ February 17, 2005, 12:56 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
No matter what OSC says or the manner he says it in, it's not right to engage in low behavior ourselves. There nothing that another person can do (especially when we're talking about writing things over the internet) that makes you doing something wrong ok. OSC (if he read any of this or cares if he did, which I pretty strongly doubt) could spend next week's column calling me every name in the book and disparaging me in every way he can think of and it wouldn't change in the slightest that it would be wrong for me to do the same to him or intentionally set out to hurt him. And that's leaving aside that it would cheapen me to do any of those things.
If I'm getting support (and I don't necessarily think that I am) that it of the type that it's okay for me to be rude because OSC has definitely been rude, I don't want it. If I thought I was being rude or that I set out to express hate or whatever, I would admit I was wrong and appologize. I just don't think that this is the case.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, It's possible that I let my perspective of OSC as someone who has been pretty free with the disdain for my profession and colleages in the past and to be honest, I didn't really see that possible interpretation until I went back and looked at it after reading your posts.
However, here's why I think you're giving more credit than is due. It's possible that when he was talking about not seeing any scientifically valid self-esteem research showing benefits he was only talking about those used by the crap self-esteemers and he just expressed it very badly and didn't feel that he had to mention the other people who were doing plenty of valid self-esteem studies during the same time. However, I don't see how you get around lauding Baumeister et al. as the people who finally stood up and said this stuff was garbage as not talking about all the researchers. It's pretty clear that the Scientific American article was evaluating all the research and OSC talks about all this research when he's talking about the article and it's implications. I think it's pretty clear to me that he thinks that Baumeister and his colleagues are the first from any research background to seriously come out for the "simple common sense" on this issue. Were his description correct and this crap self-esteem had gone unchallenged by researchers for 20 or so years, I'd call the whole field a bunch of empty-headed charlatans too.
[ February 16, 2005, 11:49 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:However, I don't see how you get around lauding Baumeister et al. as the people who finally stood up and said this stuff was garbage as not talking about all the researchers.
You're right, that's the most problematic point. I may have colored my perception by something utterly unrelated: the high-voltage wire EMF scare of the late 80s-early 90s.
In that incident, the scientific community performed study after study based on two original studies that suggested a link. However, the first two studies were not double-blind: the researchers knew which houses had child cancer incidents when they rated the emf level in the house. And yes, that's "rated." They didn't measure the field, they estimated it based on proximity to high-voltage lines.
The vast, vast majority of the double-blind studies done later found no correlation at all. Two found some very, very minor correlation two two specific types of cancer. No physical mechanism was proposed by which the fields could cause cancer.
Yet the media (I almost want to capitalize in situations like this) continually harped on the "possible dangers." Finally, the NIH (I think) did a research review, and this is what started getting more realistic press coverage. (This is all summarized from memory from the book "Voodoo Science," but this account agrees with the other research I did on the subject.)
Fast forward: I have always seen the self-esteem "praise anything" mantra put forth with no mention of the contradicting studies. This is because I do not read in the field. If I came across that article, it would be the first one seriously documenting the scientific studies it does. My conclusion would certainly be something like, "Finally! Someone is speaking sense about this." By that, I would mean "Someone in the popular media." If I were writing an article, it's something I'd catch on final (third or fourth) edit, probably.
My expectation is that OSC doesn't do third or fourth edits on these pieces. Which is depressing, because they're still better written than most of my stuff.
Anyway, that's the scenario that flitted through my head as I read the article. I have no evidence of it, but I do think my knowledge level on this topic is closer to OSC's than yours is, so it seems at least possible to me.
Dagonee
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I can see what you're saying and how it's possible (although I'd add just barely to that). However, even if that was the case, my central point still apllies and I'd like to add to it that the idea that it's the media's responsibility to educate us is a really, really crappy one. The media and the audience they play to are not concerned with, and even hostile to the ideas of quality and complexity.
There were two best-selling books written for a non-techinical audience about this very issue in the early 90s. It's not like it's hidden in arcane publications or that there weren't efforts to make this public. A very little independent effort would have turned these books up. It's the very ideas of not wanting to look at any complexity and of accepting things that sound like what you want to believe instead of looking for credible and more complete sources that allowed people to get away with the crap self-esteem in the first place.
And, if my interpretation is correct (or even if it's ust what a lot of people took away from it), OSC not only is working under this type of thinking, but is also contributing to it's spread. I think the part of the point that comes across is that people don't need to look at stuff turned out by the researchers in this area (and by extention any of psychology at all) because they are so without rigor that they bought into this empty-headed idea of self-esteem.
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
I don't really pay much attention to what toothpaste my Optometrist reccommends, either. It might be the best toothpaste and he might be right, but that's not why I go see him.![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)