posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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."
Posts: 1664 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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 ]
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
"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.
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1002 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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 ]
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
OSC not being insulted by what is said on this board would be a herculean effort that few humans could manage.
Posts: 1002 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
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 ]
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
