01 May 2007
How un-PC!
This why I love Wonkette:
Pithy throw-away comments like that help make reading about the latest crisis or government screw-up a little more tolerable.
"DNA tests would actually show most Mexicans have Spanish blood, which is why they are always dancing the flamenco and fighting the Basques."
-- in response to some blather on NY Times blog comments
Pithy throw-away comments like that help make reading about the latest crisis or government screw-up a little more tolerable.
Labels: blogging, politics, wonkette
03 January 2007
Provocation and Confrontation
I've had difficulties dealing with confrontation in my life. In a way, the 'net has helped, though it's perhaps allowed me to trun it into a bit of passive agressiveness. It's pretty easy to confront people behind the mask of internet anonyminity. That's much easier than actually dealing with it face to face.
That's why posts/sagas like this one at Althouse, wherein Ann Althouse continues to defend her criticism of a libertarian conference, are amusing and shocking to me. One the one hand, the debate is entertaining. Personalities clash, some ideas are brought to light and examined, and I get a bit of thrill out of reading the players' attempts at one-up-manship.
On the other hand, it's slightly disturbing. In the end, it seems like a lot of missed shots - they're all debating different things and not really engaged in a discussion. That's the way I often feel when I'm debating with someone - like I can't breach that disconnection in our thinking. I usually feel that I can see where they are coming from, but I can't figure out how to term my argument in a way they can understand me. Not that they have to agree with me... just understand me.
After a lengthy period of engaging in debates and discussions on a message board, I came to the conclusion that I was as much of a windbag as the rest of them. I wasn't really engaged. Just throwing out my shots out there without much chance of changing opinions or building consensus.
In a sense, blogging does that as well. It's easy to find the opinions out there that you want to agree with or counter with your own data and philosophies. The blog can give you a sense of ownership and a leeway to write how you would. Even if you are citing others in order to "engage" them, you really only have yourself to engage. Comments can bring in some outside players, much like the message board. But you don't really have to prove anything.
But Althouse has mentioned recently that this is the way the "game" is played. Provoking another blogger or bloggers should lead to their retaliation and the coveted links. Draw them in to draw their readers to you.
Can I play that game? Do I need to? I suppose it gets down to the reasons for this blog. Already those reasons are in flux, but underneath it all is a desire to write and be read. But I think I'll need to pick my fights well.
That's why posts/sagas like this one at Althouse, wherein Ann Althouse continues to defend her criticism of a libertarian conference, are amusing and shocking to me. One the one hand, the debate is entertaining. Personalities clash, some ideas are brought to light and examined, and I get a bit of thrill out of reading the players' attempts at one-up-manship.
On the other hand, it's slightly disturbing. In the end, it seems like a lot of missed shots - they're all debating different things and not really engaged in a discussion. That's the way I often feel when I'm debating with someone - like I can't breach that disconnection in our thinking. I usually feel that I can see where they are coming from, but I can't figure out how to term my argument in a way they can understand me. Not that they have to agree with me... just understand me.
After a lengthy period of engaging in debates and discussions on a message board, I came to the conclusion that I was as much of a windbag as the rest of them. I wasn't really engaged. Just throwing out my shots out there without much chance of changing opinions or building consensus.
In a sense, blogging does that as well. It's easy to find the opinions out there that you want to agree with or counter with your own data and philosophies. The blog can give you a sense of ownership and a leeway to write how you would. Even if you are citing others in order to "engage" them, you really only have yourself to engage. Comments can bring in some outside players, much like the message board. But you don't really have to prove anything.
But Althouse has mentioned recently that this is the way the "game" is played. Provoking another blogger or bloggers should lead to their retaliation and the coveted links. Draw them in to draw their readers to you.
Can I play that game? Do I need to? I suppose it gets down to the reasons for this blog. Already those reasons are in flux, but underneath it all is a desire to write and be read. But I think I'll need to pick my fights well.
Labels: althouse, blogging, confrontation, provocation
20 December 2006
Anonymity?
There's a lot of myself here, and I don't think I want to hide my name, but I decided I shouldn't subject my son to being published without his consent. Seeing that he's only 2, he can't really give consent, so I'm no longer going to use his name. I'll probably come up with a pseudonym at some point (since saying "our son" all the time gets tedious), even though it'll be really easy to find out if someone wanted to.
There's lot of conversation out there about privacy, and even some good arguments about transparency in everyday life. If you want to start that conversation, that's what the comments are for.
There's lot of conversation out there about privacy, and even some good arguments about transparency in everyday life. If you want to start that conversation, that's what the comments are for.
