Hi Andrew,

I hate to say it, but I think you are just going to have to learn to develop a thicker skin. I've always maintained that blogs are tougher than any other medium because you only hear the negative. People rarely post, "you go girl" messages even when they are thinking them. I know that I don't. I only post if I disagree and think that I can add value. I mean, I'm your biggest fan (other than M&D) and when was the last time I posted to agree with you? Has that ever happened? ;)

I really enjoy reading your posts on ObiWings, and the comments are also enjoyable (for the most part).

Even if you ignore my first recommendation, I'd say learning to ignore certain posters would be of high value. Anyone who is accusing you of dishonesty would be high on my list of people to ignore. Followed closely by Jesglursiac or whatever her name is. (I mean, she accused you of willfully choosing to have 18,000 people die for no reason other than a policy dispute. That's so outside the realm of civilized debate, and frankly rationality, that any further discourse is a waste of both of your time.)

Lastly, I'd say to accept the fact that everyone over there is going to disagree and continue to condescend a little. For the most part I find the commenters very intelligent and they offer points of view that I find enlightening. As a whole they are very much worth reading.

Just my two cents. Either way I'll keep on reading (and posting only when I disagree!).

Andy,
I have to agree with Enrak to a certain extent. As a blogger, it seems that a thick skin is a necessity, much more so than in other endeavors.

However, I have to say that I understand your frustration - there are quite a number of people these days who are completely immune to the idea of reasonable discussion (their minds are made up, and please don't bother them with facts), not to mention the concept of critical thinking, that it can often feel like a conversation with a brick wall.

I wish I knew what the solution to that is, but so far the only thing I have come up with is to keep talking, trying to get through. Maybe you'll actually reach one or two.

I'm not sure how many foreign languages you speak, but if you speak any you'll know that you have to practise lots to improve communications :)

Oh, and in addition: I find that I sometimes really have ideological blinders and people having another point of view have to explain it several times (usually to others :) ) before I understand where they are coming from.

The discussions at ObWi have given me more insight in and thus sometimes more understanding of their position. But it only works if I can detach myself from my 'obviously the only possible interpretation' opinion and aiming for neutral is very hard.

The end result is worthwile though, especially because it is through discussions. Reading right-wing blogs doesn't teach me as much, since they never have to defend their basic ideas.

You know, there are some things that a person can't have both ways. Like (1) complaining that other people treating one as so slow because one doesn't know the minutiae on some point or other and (2) asking to be excused for good faith error because one wasn't paying attention to something at the time, or doesn't know much about it. When a writer writes about something he/she doesn't know everything about, and takes a position contrary to fact (demonstrable or widely believed), some condescension is to be expected. The remedy is either thicker skin, or more careful research before making a potentially insulting remark about some 'foible.'

For example, it doesn't really matter to your point, but might well have to groups like NOW, that Paula Jones' case was dismissed because even if everything she said was true, it wasn't sexual harassment. Or that maybe people didn't believe her because her public statements, at the outset, were contradictory. Or because her suit was funded and promoted by people with an explicit agenda not particularly related to the truth or falsity of her accusation. I don't remember 'women never lie' as a theme of the Anita Hill thing, but that's probably because I was following it very closely (she'd been an associate at my firm before going to work at EEOC, and spent some time with one of my partners preparing for her testimony). I can't say that no one ever said 'women never lie' -- although it's (a) ridiculous and (b) something I'd care a lot about, since I sometimes defend employers in sexual harassment suits.

Charley, I think you've established a terrific false choice there. Which is your perogative, of course, but you'll forgive me if I'm not convinced.

As for Jones, let's get down to brass tacks: if Jones had accused Thomas and Hill had accused Clinton, Jones would be hailed as a feminist hero today and Hill's reputation would be trashed. If you believe otherwise, knock yourself out, but the idea that feminist groups treat all cases the same regardless of the politics is, well, laughable.

"We all have things we believe, and when someone challenges those beliefs, we tend to get upset."

This seems to ignore the point that a fair number of us prefer to have our beliefs challenged, as we find that more stimulating and entertaining, if for no better reason (although I believe I have various better reasons).

Also, your comment system will probably reject this, as per 9 out of 10 attempts.

Yes, this time, there's no actually visible "security code."

Broken.

Actually, there's no visible security code because I turned off the system so comments won't get blocked. I just haven't taken the time to clean out the code yet.

And must you be so crabby?

Charley,

To be more precise, I disagree that those two issues are mutually exclusive. Also, the condescension Enrak and I noted wasn't what you're assuming. I recommend you try following the link to read the actual comments.

Gary,

Lots of people say they seek out dissenting viewpoints, but actions speak louder than words, and most people I interact with don't react to a challenge to their axioms as either stimulating or entertaining. They act like it's a threat and tend to lash out to make it go away.

Which is not to suggest that Gary isn't looking for different viewpoints, only that he's more unusual than he thinks.

Andrew, I'm new to your struggle at Obsidian Wings. Don't ordinarily read the blog nor am I familiar with your work. But I am familiar with the general issue. Two things come to mind. First, debating with ideologues of any ilk quickly reduces itself to futility. It's boring and frustrating. Second, re civility, even as a commenter, I've had others sneer at me with dripping cynicism and impugn my character. I don't much like it. It's not something that I engage in. Your reaction doesn't mean that you're thin-skinned; it means that you're normal. Blogging shouldn't reduce itself to a choice between masochism and bloodsport pugilism. Your desire for civility isn't simply admirable, it should be a given. If you walk, don't look back.

same request here, Andrew, on deleting the 1st 2. I'll blame it on typekey. :(

Why don't you post at the new Forvm

As for Jones, let's get down to brass tacks: if Jones had accused Thomas and Hill had accused Clinton, Jones would be hailed as a feminist hero today and Hill's reputation would be trashed. If you believe otherwise, knock yourself out, but the idea that feminist groups treat all cases the same regardless of the politics is, well, laughable.

One need not believe in the second condition at all to disagree with the first. I have never said and would never say that feminist groups treat all cases the same regardless of politics. That doesn't at all mean, though, that the particulars of Jones and Hill are easily or readily switchable. These things come up and play out in a context. Everything's in motion. One can focus on a single dimension, but in doing so one always runs the risk of seeing actual people as cartoon characters.

Your perogative, obviously.

To take an example from your line of work, there are a million ways in which the Iraq War can be compared to the Vietnam War. (Or, if one's of that bent, the Peloponnesian War.) On some axes, such comparisons might be useful. On many (most?) they aren't. Can I actually name some ways in which one can usefully compare Iraq and Vietnam? It would be silly to even try to do so in a conversation with you for two independent reasons: (1) You've probably forgotten more than I'll ever know about the mechanics of the war business, and I'd make so many basic factual mistakes, that whatever germ of a point I might have would get lost, and (2) I'd run the risk of directly insulting you and/or people you know, without meaning to do so. Either way, no shot at successful communication. [Cue Strother Martin]

Ok, I think you'll have had quite enough of my point of view on this subject, and so I'll suggest a change: I've been reading the new Woodward book this weekend. I'd be very interested in your impressions of it, if you've read it.

The description of White House mechanics is pretty much what I'd been guessing at all along, but the mechanics at the Pentagon are much more opaque to me.

Charley,

The problem I run into is that the piece would have been meaningless had I not been able to point to some example to Democratic double standards as a counterpoint to Republican ones. (Which I'm quite confident ObWi readers are already aware of.) Sure, there were lots of differences between Jones and Hill. But I think that the big picture is still accurate, that both Republicans and Democrats acted very differently (as a group) depending on whose ox was being gored.

I'm afraid I haven't even picked up the Woodward book yet. I just finished All Governments Lie by Myra McPherson, and started Doris Kearns Goodwin's Team of Rivals last night. I still have The One Percent Doctrine and Fiasco in the pile to be read. It's hard to keep up.

It is indeed hard. I dropped Rivals. Liked it, but it just wasn't singing to me. Some other time, I guess. One Percent was OK. I don't usually read such contemporary non-fiction, but there are parts of that book in which I have a more than passive interest.

Woodward is playing to my own bias -- in favor of the military, against the neo-cons -- and I have to say that I'm finding the President a more sympathetic character than one might guess from the press accounts.

For what it's worth, Andrew--I'm a lurker on ObWi, and a lurker here thanks to your appearance on ObWi, and I think you're one of the more rational, reasonable voices over there. I don't think it's that you express yourself badly...on the contrary, I think you do a damned good job of laying out your arguments, identifying your assumptions, and telling us exactly why you're including X or Y example. I think some folks prefer to focus on what they perceive to be your errors, and assume that if ONLY they can point them out to you, somehow you'll change your mind, your argument, your politics...gods know. They do miss the point. Whether that's on purpose or not, I can't say (although I have my uncharitable guesses about a few of them).

I think having a conservative voice over there is a good thing. Which is all a long-winded way of saying--*I* appreciate your posts, and your arguments, even if I don't always agree with every single element of them. Or maybe especially because I don't.

For what it's worth, Andrew--I'm a lurker on ObWi, and a lurker here thanks to your appearance on ObWi, and I think you're one of the more rational, reasonable voices over there. I don't think it's that you express yourself badly...on the contrary, I think you do a damned good job of laying out your arguments, identifying your assumptions, and telling us exactly why you're including X or Y example. I think some folks prefer to focus on what they perceive to be your errors, and assume that if ONLY they can point them out to you, somehow you'll change your mind, your argument, your politics...gods know. They do miss the point. Whether that's on purpose or not, I can't say (although I have my uncharitable guesses about a few of them).

I think having a conservative voice over there is a good thing. Which is all a long-winded way of saying--*I* appreciate your posts, and your arguments, even if I don't always agree with every single element of them. Or maybe especially because I don't.

Sorry for the double post...it's being persnickety.

cinnabari,

Thanks. My apologies for the comment system. I've hired someone who knows a lot more about MT than I do to try and fix it.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: