I'm sure you're getting a fair amount of mail regarding that column. Glenn Greenwald has the most amusing retort.. but he doesn't go all the way to the logical conclusion.Just sent that off to columnist David Warren.
I'm gay.. I know gay.. and you could be a poster child for the in-denial gay man. Wow.. that's pretty obvious.
Once you realize you don't really have to hate yourself for it.. and it's okay, you'll be much happier and less obviously tortured.
Glenn Greenwald has a devastating post about this peculiar breed of right wingers. I often write about them myself, and go after them on their own blogs until the point that they start deleting my comments.
Uh.. waaayyyyy gay..
5 comments:
Hehe, good one, Tom.
Though you obviously don't mean "gay" as an insult, I have a feeling that Mr. Warren won't take your observations too kindly. ;-D
Peace.
The love child of Truman Capote and Lady Bird Johnson would be gay, now, wouldn't he?
I find it odd that the arguements of people who are so obviously incompetant and wrong are not attacked. Im reading that article, and cant find one thing attacking his ideas, just himself and his background.
/shrug
Attacking a persons credentials in my experience is used only as a last resort after attacking their ideas has failed. If hes so obviously wrong, and so obviously underqualified, then why bother attacking? Why not attack the weak and incoherent ramblings of said idiot?
Never made sense then, still doesnt make sense now.
Actually.. it's quite relevant to make observations of the whys of what causes people who have influential opinion to think the way they do.
The debate isn't about economics. It's about war and sending other people off to die in it.
Besides.. why does everyone think there should only be a civil debate about arguments? Credentials and background do matter when the columnist has influence.
Greenwald updated his post to add;
UPDATE: Whenever I write about the fear which drives large swaths of Bush supporters, people write -- both in comments and by e-mail -- to argue that they are driven less by fear (which is merely their tool) and more by authoritarian desires. I don't disagree, but they're not mutually exclusive. As John Dean points out in his book, fear is often the driving reason why people seek protection from government power and become part of a movement which worship authority.
Knowing why people advocate things such as warrentless wiretaps of Americans is important. Understanding motivation is important.
And then rediculing the cowards for sending other people off to die in their stead is a reasonable response, and I like doing it.
I agree that is is important, but not exclusive. If you are going to attack one to the exclusion of the other, then attack the ideas and not the person. Attacking the person just makes you sound bitter and angry. Its the resort of people who cant attack the ideas. Im not saying this is neccisarily the case, thought it may be, it gives the impression that the person has no real arguement, and only wishes to insult.
I think that the focus of credential attacks should be to put issues in context, or when facts are being disputed. If the debate were on wormhole theory, and some paper boy were trying to debate with a researcher from Princeton, then yes, credentials are definitely worth a look-see. However, if indeed the facts come out to support the paper boy, you cant just deny those facts based on his poor credentials. Einstein was a patent clerk.
I guessI find debating issues is more satisfying and, in the end, more meaningful than debating the people with issues.
Post a Comment