What if, in this new year, we agreed to make these blogging resolutions?
1. In an effort to be more respectful, if I disagree with a commenters point, I'll quote it, restate it and ask if I am understanding correctly (ie, Bubba, you said, "X" and that sounds like to me Z. Is that what you mean...?)
2. When it's been pointed out that I have misunderstood another's position, I will promptly apologize for the misunderstanding, offering an explanation if helpful (ie, "My bad. It SOUNDED like to me that was what you were saying, can you understand how I got that impression...?")
3. I will refrain from making the assumption that if a statement SEEMS to be saying something to me, that my assumption is not the sum total of all possibilities. I will stick more to direct quotes and talk about what the commenter directly said, rather than discussing my summary of what it SEEMED like to me.
4. I will try to treat those I disagree with as my literal brother or uncle or some beloved family member with whom I have disagreements. ("What if this commenter is actually my crazy ol' Uncle Fervent? I really ought to be nice to him, even if he is a little loopy...")
5. I will try to recognize that if someone criticizes a position of mine, they're not necessarily criticizing me. IT'S OKAY TO DISAGREE. And if they are indeed criticizing me, I will strive to ignore the ad hom attack and deal with the criticism of a position, if there is one being criticized.
Wouldn't the blogosphere be a better place if we all practiced these sorts of niceties?
39 comments:
I will try to treat those I disagree with as my literal brother or uncle or some beloved family member with whom I have disagreements.
It's a good thing that you elaborated your point after this sentence, otherwise it could be open to a variety of interpretations. Like the Ferengi saying "Treat people in your debt like family."*
These are fine resolutions, Dan.
*Exploit them ruthlessly.
Must we be so formal? Must we really suck all the fun out of blogging? Why be so defensive in the first place? Even when "wackadoodles" refer to me and other conservatives as "busybodies, fusspots, tattletales and scolds", for example, I hardly take offense. If I find a particular accusation to be curious, then indeed, I seek clarification. No particular problem for me.
As I've said in the past, I've no issue with snark, other than this medium limits one's ability to accurately convey nuance, which can be a problem with good snark.
What worries me here is how much more, rather than less, time will be wasted over unnecessary pleasantries and protocols. We both have spoken of time limitations. I really don't see that you, Dan, would in the end do anything differently. My (and I would wager most) responses to your comments are already requests for clarification if they something other than "Oh, I see." So what? If they do not reflect your meaning, then YOU need to restate it.
For example, you have recently objected to my inference that you have a problem with rich people. You claimed to have had nice things to say about some rich folk at some point, but did not offer any example. I was merely drawing a conclusion from the many comments you've made over the years, such as the use of poorly applied Scriptural references to oppressive wealthy people and warnings in regards to the accumulation of wealth. The point here is that one need not specifically say "I don't much care for rich people" for anyone to logically conclude such a thing when there is so much negative toward the rich coming from your keyboard versus so little positive. In your own words, "Don't you see how someone might think that?"
How about THIS resolution: Let's all lighten up?
Marshall, I've repeatedly pointed out that I AM rich. Do you think I "have a problem with" myself? My wife and children ARE rich. Alan and Geoffrey ARE rich. My parents and at least half of my church are all wealthy.
Does it sound like I have a problem with any of them?
I'd suggest that by following these suggestions, we could all lighten up. Not only that, but our conversations would be more rational and based on responding to the others' ACTUAL positions rather than assuming we know what they mean even when they haven't said it.
So, neither you, nor Geoffrey or Alan or half the people in your church have to go to work on Monday morning in order to insure your monthly expenses are paid? None of you ever need to go to work again due to the vast size of your net worth? You see, I'm asking these questions because, if I understand you correctly, when you say "rich", that sounds to me like "enough money on tap or set up to flow in so that I don't have to go to work anymore", which is a definition far closer to what 99% of the population would say if they were totally honest and not trying to pose as a psuedo-sanctimonious, quasi-pious I-don't-care-about-stuff dodger. Is this how you treat "a brother"? F**king around with word games when he's trying to get to the f**king point? I am painfully aware of how much better I have it than do many others, even in the midst of my current employment woes. Why must you play such games? It's dishonest. So that there is no misunderstanding, it's f**king lying. Now you want to continue chiding me about "rational" discussion when you can't even use the word "rich" as it is most commonly understood?
And by the way, I don't have to "assume" anything about your positions, nor do I attempt to do so. Never have. Your words are clear and I only present conclusions based upon your words. I've stated that numerous times, as well as the fact that I believe your problem is that you don't like how your own words reverberate back to you within my conclusions. When you can't find a better arrangement of words that does not result in a more satisfying conclusion, you want to say the problem is mine(ours) rather than to ever review your own position. Do you want me to just swallow your words like Alan and Geoffrey without any honest feedack? Would you prefer I lie and say "That's nice, Danny! What a fine Christian soul you are!" when I see blatant problems in your position, or find holes or aspects that don't make sense? When have I ever done less than honestly try to provoke a good and clear explanation out of you? When I have I ever just said something like, "You're a dickhead, Dan!" and left it there? When have I ever called ANYONE a name without a clear explanation to go with it? The answer is, I don't. (The "names" I use are always descriptive and self-explanatory and STILL I follow it with an explanation--it's a free service I provide.) :)
Besides, Dan. How does anyone KNOW they are assuming anything until their assumption is proven incorrect? Here's an example of what's happening:
When you say someone is assuming something you didn't say, it isn't a matter of "Dan says 'chair', I heard 'throat warbler mangrove'." Yet your reaction suggests the disparity is that great. But it's more like, "Dan says 'chair', I thought of 'Lazy Boy', when Dan meant 'chaisse lounge'."
Marshall said...
You see, I'm asking these questions because, if I understand you correctly, when you say "rich", that sounds to me like "enough money on tap or set up to flow in so that I don't have to go to work anymore"
Then you are using the term differently than I am. I am speaking of, let's say, the top 10% of the wealthiest in the world. The actual "richest" people. Those with the most money, resources and options. The Richest, literally.
Are there DEGREES within the term, "rich?" Sure. There are those you mention who make so much they don't have to work, and they are rich, too.
That doesn't mean that the rest of us in the top 10% aren't rich.
So, you could benefit yourself in making your position by speaking of and understanding the word as I'm using it, rather than presuming I'm speaking of only "the filthy rich," or those "evil, nasty big corporations."
You see, I haven't said that and don't mean that, so when you presume that and argue against your presumption rather than my actual position, it just undermines your position because you're arguing against a strawman.
All the more reason for us all to embrace these sorts of resolutions as standard communication devices.
Marshall...
when I see blatant problems in your position, or find holes or aspects that don't make sense?
I have no problems with questions. I suggest you do so in a respectful manner, though, and that when you DO misstate someone's position, respectfulness would suggest you apologize for it. "My bad, I thought you meant this other thing. So dealing with your ACTUAL position..." and carry on. Acknowledge the mistake so we're all on the same page and then it becomes easier to move on.
It's just a rational way to carry on a conversation, especially with people you don't know well.
"Then you are using the term differently than I am."
Nawhhh!! Really???!!! I'll take it an honest step further: You use the term in a distinctively different manner than probably 90% of the population. So different, in fact, that it should never be used by you without you supplying a definition. For most people, "rich" & "wealthy" are interchangable and typically conjure thoughts of Trump/Gates/Forbes/Buffet level wealth and I would insist that you damned well know it. YOU so often chastise me for word usage that you feel strays from common or dictionary definitions. Perhaps my mistake is in not being aware your rules for word usage is far more complex than yourstyle of living.
"I suggest you do so in a respectful manner, though, and that when you DO misstate someone's position, respectfulness would suggest you apologize for it."
Snark does not equal a lack of respect (except in Alan's case). Worse, what you're really suggesting is that I apologize when your poor ability to express your positions leads to conlusions on my part that you don't like the sound of. Sounds rather prideful on your part and that you're assuming negative intent on mine. How very gracious! More gracious still would be to assume the best of your opponent until he actually does something overtly nasty. That attitude makes blogging so much more enjoyable!
Marshall...
So different, in fact, that it should never be used by you without you supplying a definition.
It's why I often DO include the point that we all, myself included, are amongst the world's wealthiest people, because many people do not think of themselves as rich even though they are, by reasonable standards as well as by the standard English definition...
Rich: having abundant possessions and especially material wealth
Wealthy: 1: very affluent
2: characterized by abundance
So, when I am using a word in the standard English definition of the word, you think I ought to go ahead and provide a clarification for folk like you who don't consider the average Westerner "wealthy"? (Or, perhaps you do, but not really??) Perhaps I should, and, as pointed out, it's why I often do.
As I said in one of my first posts talking about wealth issues, back in 2006...
we who are wealthy have lived beyond our means and the world desires to emulate us - an impossible and undesirable dream. The world can't support 7 billion Wealthy Western (ie, over-consumptive) lifestyles.
But perhaps it would be well for me to always make it clear in every post where it comes up that I am speaking of the standard English definition of the words (wealthy, rich), not popular, populist derivations of these ideas.
Thanks for the thought.
So, now that you DO know that I mean the standard English definition of the terms, do you understand how silly it is to suggest that I "have a problem" with the wealthy?
Marshall...
Worse, what you're really suggesting is that I apologize when your poor ability to express your positions leads to conlusions on my part that you don't like the sound of.
1. Not that "I don't like the sound of" but "aren't my positions." It has nothing to do with how things sound and everything to do with accuracy and facts.
2. I apologize regularly when I've misunderstood a fellow blogger's position, even when I think my conclusion was reasonable based upon their actual words. If I think my conclusion was reasonable, I'll generally say something like, "My bad. It SOUNDED LIKE you were saying..." and sometimes I'll even go so far as to quote their position.
Generally, in my experience, I've tended to have people SAY I'm misunderstanding/misstating their position, but when I ask them to show me where, exactly, I've done so, they back off. But in cases where it's actually happened, I generally apologize.
Why not? It was an innocent mistake, why wouldn't I give a quick apology, just as a matter of politeness? That's all I'm saying.
Maybe it's my southern upbringing, but I place a high value on being polite, as a rule, and find it serves me well enough, even though I may not live up to it consistently.
I find it's polite to assume my opponent isn't purposely trying to manipulate or distort my words. I don't expect an apology for what doesn't require one. Frankly, I find apologies grating unless real harm is done. Just so you know, with regards to me, you can save 'em. It's almost insulting and they get in the way. (It's insulting because of the assumption that I take offense easily over such insignificant things. Also, from my background in martial arts, where the point is learning how to defend one's self from violent attack, making contact during training is to be expected. Apologizing for it sets bad habits that can have a negative impact in a real-life situation. Therefor, I learned not to expect apologies when obviously no bad intent exists. I still don't.)
I don't believe most people in the Western world believe themselves to be wealthy or rich just because there are people worse off in the world. I don't believe that having more than such people equates to "abundance". Because I have shoes and someone else doesn't I'm rich? No. It just means I'm a bit better off. So too are most Westerners over the impoverished in the world and I'd wager that's the attitude they have on the subject.
So despite where you may have gotten your definitions of the words, you now have a very subjective meaning of the word "abundance". Indeed, the word itself IS subjective. What is abundance to you might be just enough or not enough to someone else.
Getting back to "conclusions" and how they sound to you...
I can understand you insisting that my conclusions aren't your positions. I would balk if mine rebounded back to me as poorly as yours does to you. But they are indeed your positions as you have explained them. As I said, I can't be blamed for your inefficient attempts to lay them out. The point here is that you wrongly accuse me of misunderstanding what you apparently explained poorly.
When it comes to something like your position on the rich, that it seems you don't much care for them or think of them negatively, it is only due to your many comments on the subject. As I've said, if you've ever expressed positive comments on the wealthy, I've missed them. All I have is what I haven't missed, and those indicate negativity toward the rich. Not the rich compared to the most impoverished person in a third world country, but the rich compared to most of us engaged in discussion on these here blogs.
Marshall...
they are indeed your positions as you have explained them.
No, they're not. They're YOUR INCORRECT HUNCHES about my positions that you have incorrectly summarized.
You have heard me say James says, "is it not the rich who oppress you," and Mary says, "You have fed the hungry and sent the rich away," and assumed I meant that I have a problem with "the rich."
But because you assume something that I HAVE NOT SAID, based on words that you apparently did not understand does not mean that they are my positions. Not in the real world, Marshall.
When I have pointed out that they are not my positions, they are simply NOT my positions, not factually in the real world.
Your problem is you are hearing me say x, y and z and you appear to be operating under the assumption that the one and only way that x, y and z can be interpreted is the way that YOU interpret it (which is something OTHER than "x, y and z.") You appear to have an arrogance in your presumptions that reality does not bear out.
Facts don't bear out your hunch that I have a problem with rich people. Just because it seems that way to you does not mean you are right.
Marshall...
Also, from my background in martial arts, where the point is learning how to defend one's self from violent attack, making contact during training is to be expected. Apologizing for it sets bad habits that can have a negative impact in a real-life situation.
Then don't apologize. For me, being prepared to apologize for misunderstandings is a sign of humility and strength and can only be a good thing. It seems an entirely good and Christian habit to be in.
If I ever DO misunderstand and misstate your position, I WILL be sorry for the confusion.
Beyond the humility, there is also the point of acknowledging the mistake. If I have misstated your position and you correct it and I continue on without acknowledging it, how does anyone know if I have actually understood the point.
On the other hand, when you say, "Dan, you misspoke when you said..." and I say, "Oh, I see. Sorry about that, I get your point now..." or "Sorry about that, but it sure seemed like you were saying that because..." and clarity has a chance to happen and some understanding, as a result.
In conversations - especially with strangers (as in this context), I find it a pretty important thing to do: Admit the error and move on.
You'll have to make your calls and I'll make mine.
Marshall...
The point here is that you wrongly accuse me of misunderstanding what you apparently explained poorly.
But Geoffrey, Alan and others, I suspect, had no problem understanding me. I doubt that my conservative friend, John, thought I "had a problem with" rich people.
But here's your chance to actually make your case, Marshall. So far, I have seen only innuendo and unsupported allegations. Make your case: I seem to you to have a problem with rich people because... what?
That you have never seen me write a positive thing about rich people? I'm sure you know that the lack of any writings on a topic is not reasonable support that a person is hostile or opposed to that topic.
If that is the entirety of why you have reached your conclusion, I'm sure you can see that is a weak premise for that conclusion.
But, wait, you say, I also say mean stuff about rich people? That might be a clue IF it ever happens, but I don't think it has.
But wait, you say, I quote the Bible saying things like, "You have fed the hungry but sent the rich away empty," and "is it not the rich who oppress you?" Well, that does indicate that I have an interest in what the bible has to say about us rich people, but is it "evidence" that I have a problem with rich people (you know, rich people, like myself)? No, it doesn't.
So, make your case, Marshall: BASED ON WHAT that I have actually said have you reached your conclusion? I stand ready to consider your concern IF there is anything that I have actually said that might raise the concern.
If it is based on mere hunches, not on my actual words, though, I hope you can understand that I would not find that a compelling argument.
"No, they're not. They're YOUR INCORRECT HUNCHES about my positions that you have incorrectly summarized."
No, they're not. They're conclusions formed by the totality of your words over the yers.
"You have heard me say James says, "is it not the rich who oppress you," and Mary says, "You have fed the hungry and sent the rich away," and assumed I meant that I have a problem with "the rich.""
No. I have heard you say that and hundreds of other things and the best conclusion includes the inference of a negative attitude toward very wealthy people. It would be no different than spending all those years speaking of the negatives of slavery but then insisting you have no problem with slave owners.
Indeed, my "hunches" as you like to call them, are set on more solid ground than most of your Biblical understanding, including your views on wealth and poverty.
As for people like Alan and Geoffrey understanding your words, well, Geoffrey has trouble understaning his own point, say nothing of anyone eslse's, and Alan writes off opposition as busybodies and fussbudgets. And of course, as Geoffrey has shown here with regards to simple living, lefties are too easily swept away on the emotion of a concept without spending much time looking at the reality of it.
"So, make your case, Marshall: BASED ON WHAT that I have actually said have you reached your conclusion?"
I've said repeatedly that it is based on the totality of your comments over the years. If you expect exact quotes, then you have me at a disadvantage for I've not the time or inclination to poor throught the archives of this or other blogs to seek out such quotes.
more coming
Marshall...
I've said repeatedly that it is based on the totality of your comments over the years.
and...
But it's not merely a matter of what you say, but also of what you don't say.
So, you can't/won't point to some specific problem with something I've actually said? Your basing it on all I've said and all I've not said??
Marshall...
If you expect exact quotes, then you have me at a disadvantage...
Imagine that, I expect people to have conversations based upon something I've actually said. But feel free to base your argument on everything and nothing, Marshall.
Just don't expect people to take you seriously.
I respond very well to specific critiques.
I generally try to ignore vague nothings.
You are currently in that second category.
But thanks for the questions on simple living, at least. Gives me something to work on actually responding to.
Marshall, what if Geoffrey, Alan or myself think that, based upon the totality of what you've said and on all the things you've NOT said, that you are a child-molesting, dog-kicking, toad-licking teenager who likes to dress in dainty girls undies on weekends?
"Well, on what in the world would you base that??" you might ask.
"On everything you've ever said. AND all the things you haven't said." we might reply.
What is there to respond to in any of that sort of silliness?
Nothing, absolutely nothing.
You can state the obvious, "Well, in the real world, that's NOT the case. And I've never stated that it's the case!"
"don't matter," we might petulantly respond. "It's obviously true based on everything you've said. And not said."
That would be just utterly goofy if we were to try to make such a ridiculous "argument," (of course, it's not an argument at all, just brain diarrhea).
And it's just as utterly goofy if that's your sum total of your position.
Lacking anything substantive to say, then, move on to another topic or find something REAL to comment on.
You know Dan, if you want to simplify, you could always reduce your 5 resolutions down to one: Don't feed the trolls. :)
Happy New Year.
"So, you can't/won't point to some specific problem with something I've actually said?"
Won't. Too time consuming and requiring far more effort than I'm willing to expend. But I'll do this: I'll point to any future statements that support this belief (graciously giving you the opportunity to dispel it at the same time).
"Your basing it on all I've said and all I've not said??"
What's the problem? Your support for the notion that God would bless homosexual marriages is based on this very concept. The difference is that I actually have a better basis for my belief (your current denials notwithstanding).
-As I've stated, all of your presentations of what you think are the Biblical position on economics slant negatively toward the rich.
-You are firm in your support for progressive taxation which has a negative impact on the rich.
-Your comments on corporations generally suggest negative behavior for the sake of profits.
You deny this? Yet nothing whatsoever in defense of the wealthy. Thus, my conclusion based on your words thus far (current denials notwithstanding) is logical.
Thus, this drivel:
"Marshall, what if Geoffrey, Alan or myself think that, based upon the totality of what you've said and on all the things you've NOT said, that you are a child-molesting, dog-kicking, toad-licking teenager who likes to dress in dainty girls undies on weekends?"
...doesn't in the least bit wash. Yours is total fabrication of a type for which you are now famous and you can't honestly support the contention. Though I must say, that you continually try this bit and think that it helps your arguments and do so without embarrassment is remarkable.
It's pretty clear that while I won't put in the effort to find exact quotes, what I have done in no way resembles your lame example. Here. I'll help you out. You could suppose that based on all I've ever said and not said, I don't care much for homosexuals. Try that. (You'd still lose out, but at least it would be a better parallel.)
Marshall, your fingers are a-typing, but you ain't saying nothing.
Come back again if you have actual comments on actual positions I actually hold.
Alan, if I don't feed them, who will?
They'd be trolling around like starving squirrels in the wintertime, looking for some nuts.
I'm their nut... (keeping it clean, here)
Art: "As for people like Alan and Geoffrey understanding your words, well, Geoffrey has trouble understaning his own point, say nothing of anyone eslse's, and Alan writes off opposition as busybodies and fussbudgets. And of course, as Geoffrey has shown here with regards to simple living, lefties are too easily swept away on the emotion of a concept without spending much time looking at the reality of it."
OK, now that is a sort-of substantive claim regarding my lack of ability to understand what I've written (interesting enough, the exact charge I leveled against you, using examples). So, like Dan, I would dearly love to see an example where I evince any lack of understanding of my own words. Furthermore, what, exactly does it mean that I am "a typical lefty"? What is "a typical lefty"? Considering most leftists of whom I am aware are pretty hostile to religion and I happen to be (a) a Christian who is (b) married to an ordained clergy-person, I think that makes me pretty atypical. In what way do I demonstrate being "swept away by emotion" as I consider what Dan has written?
See, Art, my questions are similar to Dan's, and really quite easy to answer.
" Alan writes off opposition as busybodies and fussbudgets"
Oops. He misspelled obsession as "opposition".
Alan,
I properly spelled the word I meant to use. If you're still confused, let me know and I'll be happy to explain it to you.
I think I know better than you do the word you meant to use.
Game. Set. Match. :)
"OK, now that is a sort-of substantive claim regarding my lack of ability to understand what I've written (interesting enough, the exact charge I leveled against you, using examples). So, like Dan, I would dearly love to see an example where I evince any lack of understanding of my own words."
True. You did level the charge, but your examples failed to prove it. As for the last sentence above, my words were a hyperbolic shot at your now famous penchant for missing the point, ironically supported by the mere lodging of the request.
"Furthermore, what, exactly does it mean that I am "a typical lefty"? What is "a typical lefty"?"
Don't think I used the word "typical", but I'll concede that since I've done so in the past. But, like the outrage over the use of the word "socialist" in reference to Barry Obama, you hang your hat on the insistence that "lefty" be defined in one specific absolute manner (more irony as a lefty insists on an absolute). It is an extremely unfortunate state of affairs that the Body of Christ is currently infected with a far too large faction of lefties that your argument in defense against the charge fails.
"In what way do I demonstrate being "swept away by emotion" as I consider what Dan has written?"
The wonderment you express at his chosen simple living lifestyle. I grant that on the surface it has a nice sound to it. So do tales of pre-Columbus America and tribes in African jungles, and gee, wouldn't it be grand to live in a thatched hut on some Polynesian island away from the hub-bub of the modern world?
But while it does for me as well, I still am faced with tons of questions as to the practicality of such a lifestyle. I go beyond the emotional response to hearing what seems cool to a more objective position of really examining what it would mean if widely adopted. You know. Weighing the pros and cons like a thoughtful adult is supposed to.
Dan,
"Marshall, your fingers are a-typing, but you ain't saying nothing."
I'm saying plenty of worthy things. You're merely sticking your fingers in your ears while yelling "LALALALALALALA!!!"
First, you are correct, you didn't use the word "typical". I'll give you that one.
Ahem: "True. You did level the charge, but your examples failed to prove it. As for the last sentence above, my words were a hyperbolic shot at your now famous penchant for missing the point, ironically supported by the mere lodging of the request."
So, you have no actual quotes from me to prove your point. Indeed, if it is a "hyperbolic shot" as you say, yet you repeat the charge in the last phrase of the final sentence above, how is it hyperbolic? Again, you contradict both your intent and larger point, and refuse to offer any evidence.
Further: "But, like the outrage over the use of the word "socialist" in reference to Barry Obama, you hang your hat on the insistence that "lefty" be defined in one specific absolute manner (more irony as a lefty insists on an absolute). It is an extremely unfortunate state of affairs that the Body of Christ is currently infected with a far too large faction of lefties that your argument in defense against the charge fails."
I don't get "outraged", I get frustrated because (a) it isn't true, and (b) no matter how much evidence that I, not a socialist but sympathetic to them, and real socialists and others further to the left are actively hostile to Obama (I wouldn't call myself hostile; I am, I guess, critical, disappointed, and hold out very real hope of leadership from in over the next two years, a side point, BTW) you just keep it up. In other words, you seem impervious to reality.
As for "lefty" being defined a certain way, sure. Words have definitions, based on common usage, history of usage, and so forth, and I tend to prefer that words be used according to their definitions. I suppose that makes me weird.
As for the rest of that last sentence, I have no idea what you are talking about. I will say I enjoy your whole "infected Body of Christ", in which you dehumanize and deChristianize a wide swath of the Body, referring to them as a virus or bacteria. Nice touch there. Really classy.
I know I shouldn't, but, like Dan, I will ask again - where do I evince any lack of understanding regarding my own words? While happy to accept the title "lefty", as I self-identify as further to the left of mainstream liberalism, I do want to understand what you mean by the term, since you do not want to use the dictionary definition, or accept any real-world references for a common understanding of it.
"So, you have no actual quotes from me to prove your point."
Of course he doesn't. Just as I don't have any quote to prove that he meant "obsession". But I just know he did, because I know better than he does what he means.
See Geoffrey, all you have to do is claim that you know that in everything MA writes, he means just the opposite of what he writes and you can play his batshit crazy game too!
So when MA writes that Obama is a socialist, what he really means is that he knows that Obama isn't one. And I know that's what he meant because I know better than he does what he means, regardless of what he writes.
QED.
So I guess the trouble here may be that Geoffrey doesn't understand what "hyperbole" means or why anyone would employ it. Generally speaking, it's an outrageous exaggeration, sometimes quite silly, used to help make a point. You are fixating on the hyperbole that you can't understand your own words. The hyperbole helps make the point that you so often miss the point. Thus, your asking for proof that you don't understand your own words supports my contention that you miss the point. (Hence the irony, as you missed the point I was making, using hyperbole of not understanding your own words, of your history of missing the point. Get it now?)
"Outraged". More hyperbole. Lighten up just a tad. Sure you're frustrated. That's understandable when conservatives refuse to buy lefty crap. Here's the deal on defining words like "lefty", "socialist", even "conservative": they may each have a somewhat specific definition, but they are not definitions that can be applied specifically. What I mean is, as no two people are exactly alike, there's no way you can say only one degree of center-left constitutes lefty or liberal or socialist or marxist as they are all degrees of the same thing. As you whine about whether or not Barry qualifies as socialist in your or other lefties' eyes, we have the same deal on the right. George W. Bush is considered a right wing guy, but Reagan conservatives don't find him far enough right. They will even say he's not conservative, while an Olympia Snow might say he is compared to her. The terms still apply. What's more, that Barry hasn't been able to, or is too snake-like to try to go whole hog Stalin, it doesn't mean he's not a socialist. Few who deal in truth would say he's the worst socialist in history or the most socialist. But we shudder at the thought of what he'd do if he totally lacked concern for the ramifications of his actions or had bigger balls. In addition, we consider all his own words from his goofy self-promoting books and the people with whom he's associated and now surrounds himself (yeah, some are holdovers and less than socialist--doesn't mitigate the truth). He's a socialist.
"I tend to prefer that words be used according to their definitions. I suppose that makes me weird."
No. That's not what makes you weird. But one thing that does is expecting me to not laugh at such a BS statement. You, and lefties in general, prefer that words be used according to definitions you prefer.
"I will say I enjoy your whole "infected Body of Christ", in which you dehumanize and deChristianize a wide swath of the Body, referring to them as a virus or bacteria. Nice touch there. Really classy."
Thank you so much. How kind of you to say so.
Lefties in the church have dehumanized and deChristianized their own selves by clinging to distortions and falsehoods regarding the faith and like a virus or bacteria, these distortions spread and corrupt others. Yeah, it is kinda classy to speak the truth, so thanks again for the compliment.
Oh Alan. You're so clever.
Please demonstrate, from anything I have written, that I have distorted any "Christian ideas", be they the incarnation, the crucifixion/resurrection, the Trinity, the centrality of the Biblical narrative, and so on. Please.
I understand hyperbole. What I don't understand, quite frankly, is how you make the move from a claim of hyperbole to make a point, to returning to that same hyperbolic statement, again and again, as having been proved! This is, quite simply, nonsensical.
As for "not buying" whatever definitions I prefer, what I am reading is that you prefer your own definitions. So, Obama is a socialist, for example, not because of any criteria that most people use to understand that cluster of words as being meaningful, but merely because you say so. A leftist Christian such as myself as distorted Christian ideas not because of anything specific to which you can point, but rather because you say so.
In other words, Alan is correct. By your procedure for figuring out what other people are saying, there need be no reference to any thing that person has said; there is only your understanding of who that person really is, what his or her words really mean, and that is the correct interpretation, despite repeated denials that your interpretation has anything at all to do with reality.
Perhaps you subscribe to the "If I say it enough, maybe it will be true" theory, Marshall? If so, the question might be: are you trying to convince yourself or others of these non-reality-based phantasms? That, and, Why?
"Oh Alan. You're so clever."
True enough.
And with that, MA proves that even a broken watch is right twice a day.
Geoffrey,
Regarding the argument that you only concern yourself with your preferred definitions, I offer two points:
1. Two words: "bastard" & "marriage".
2. A question of sorts: Regarding what you claim is the only possibly definition for "socialist", consider any number of those who proudly claim the title and then demonstrate how they are all equally socialist. Then, explain the official point at which one has yet to be totally socialist as well as when one has moved even further left. Some words, like "socialist" or "lefty" are defined in a manner that lists their prominent qualities with no regard for how closely one much match each one to qualify. For example: both you and I might be known for having the same favorite color, say, green. We can be known as "greens". But then, if we are each requested to go to a paint store and bring a sample from a color chart that represents our ideal of what "green" means, one sample could be a darker shade than the sample of the other guy's. We would both still be "greens" but not quite identical in our love for the color.
It is the same with terms like "socialist" or "lefty" or "clever". Thus my point about all things left of center being the same but for matters of degree. Someone just left of center is still a socialist, but only vaguely so. One could say that anyone right of center is an anarchist, but only vaguely so (except that right-wingers do not support the concept of "no" gov't.)
Socialist, marxist, fascist, lib, progressive, lefty...they are all merely degrees of the same sickness. If you don't like that explanation, as accurate a depiction of the reality if ever there was one, that's your problem. As the fact is that you do indeed suffer from this problem, perhaps you could explain what's wrong with my explanation in the gracious manner demanded by our host.
"What I don't understand, quite frankly, is how you make the move from a claim of hyperbole to make a point, to returning to that same hyperbolic statement, again and again, as having been proved! This is, quite simply, nonsensical."
No shit. I never attempted to prove the hyperbole in the first place. But like the above shows, you continue to do so for me. In the same way, when you made the original demand that I prove my statement that you don't understand your own words, the demand itself was (and is) proof of the point the hyperbole helps to make: that you routinely miss the point. So you can quit focusing on the exaggeration of the hyperbole because the reality is that I would hope that you can indeed understand your own words. If this still isn't clear to you, then you have again proven my point to be true.
Art - in the future, I am going to preserve my sanity and patience and not respond. The reason is quite simple. Attempting to follow the thread through a conversation leads, like Ariadne, to the realization that thread has been cut and I am lost in a maze with no real way of finding my way out.
A maze of your own making. You're too busy trying to find fault with me that you make a fool of yourself. I keep leading you out but you insist on going back to the dead end intent on forcing a path of your own. This and the fact that you can't drag me with you is what tries your patience and what you call your sanity.
Post a Comment