Say What You Mean

Doug's left another comment, and all irony aside, it seems to me that this whole issue boils down to two simple issues.

Douglas V. Gibbs said...
Nice, you really are an ass. Your sweeping generalizations, and assumptions that when I say entitlement programs that must mean any and every little program is ridiculous.

The two issues are;

1. Doug is a shitty writer.

2. Doug speaks in "sweeping generalizations" and then is upset when I make generalizations about what he's written, and apply his world view to a specific context that is relevant.

The best example of that is this quote from Doug that I've referenced a number of times recently;

For example, Church organizations and charities are wonderful ways to assist the poor and show our Christian love for our neighbors, but it is not Biblical for people to be forced to provide for the poor through taxation, nor to provide so many government sponsored entitlements that the poor ceases to work towards earning their way out of poverty, instead becoming dependent upon governmental assistance.

It really does speak for itself, and doesn't need anything from me to demonstrate his view.

However, once I applied his view to one of his fellow "conservatives" - the back tracking was immediate, and again, Doug couldn't help himself but to offend his fellow and dig a deeper hole for himself.. all the while claiming it's me that is "mischaracterizing" his view.

His insistence that he grew up poor and was seriously injured and overcame those obstacles is irrelevant to the issue. He makes perfectly clear that he thinks people should be "responsible". I get that.

Let's just have him explain;

All I am saying is that I know from experience that anyone can be successful to some degree - individual responsibility and accomplishment is important to me in that sense. Are there exceptions to that? Of course there are, you dumb ass. There are always exceptions, but you obviously don't take that into consideration when you read my posts and make sweeping generalizations that I don't believe that there are exceptions - but society is not, and should not, have its direction dictated by exceptions.

Well, ya.. duh.. and that means exactly what to policy? You're speaking in "sweeping generalizations" again.. because that's all you CAN speak in, and however I "interpret" that will cause you to whine that you didn't mean it.

It's all so circular. You speak in generalizations to whine about me generalizing about what you've written.

As Jules says.. English, mother fucker... do you speak it?

He says he's going to explain it all, and I suppose we'll wait and see what that means, but I've never actually seen him detail specific policies.

In terms of entitlements, you can only draw one conclusion from everything that he's written. He does support "some entitlements" - however, he wants to make sure that the only people who receives those entitlements are those that deserve it, by his definition, and are actively working to be self-sufficient so they won't need the assistance permanently.

Doug is making "sweeping generalizations" about the type of people that find themselves in need of some sort of assistance, but has absolutely no proposal for how that translates into actual law (policy), nor does he really have any idea how any of the government entitlements actually work.

So.. in Doug's view, disability is just fine for Jennifer, because she truly is ill. When Doug admires his father's work ethic in working 3 jobs, he doesn't think that applies to Jennifer's husband. These judgements about abusing social services and being lazy, and having no incentive to get off of assistance applies to other people... those other people who are known to be lazy.. or known to be abusers of the system.. or known to be somehow cheating society by not living up to their own personal responsibilities. Who are those people Doug? Can you tell by looking at them?

You can tell that the issue is crystal clear in Doug's mind.. but I'm thinking.. okay.. which "entitlements" do you do away with? Is Doug the person who gets to decide that Jennifer's case is legitimate, but somebody else's isn't? Does Doug actually think the government has no standards for entitlement awards? Does Doug think that there is no fraud investigation?

The mind reels with questions that Doug doesn't have an answer for. I've said all along that he's a propagandist, so when the right says "cut entitlements" Doug says "but society is not, and should not, have its direction dictated by exceptions."

Is Doug the person that looks at a family and decides that somebody needs to work 3 jobs?

If Doug is merely asking that people be "responsible" - then great. If Doug is asking people to try to be "successful" and "accomplished", I have zero problem with that. Those are noble ideals, and it's why we go to school, and why do what we can. However, I will always defend people who are doing what they are capable of, even if they aren't capable of much. I don't assume the worst of people. I don't assume that a family on food stamps is lazy and not willing to "work 3 jobs".

The problem is that Doug is applying those noble principles to a policy idea that he's failing to articulate in any meaningful sense, because he's a shitty writer. How do you go from "be responsible" - to.. say.. doing away with disability benefits?

That is the disconnect in what Doug is saying, and which allows me to draw the natural conclusions based on his own statements that make him so upset.

Here's a writing tip for you Doug - and, again, your mechanics are a bit better than they used to be.. When you write, read it back to yourself as if you are somebody completely different. When you read something as "you" - it all makes perfect sense. If you read it as if you are somebody else, you'll be able to catch places where your meaning is not clear. It's just basic writing skill really.

Pretty much everything I write, I evaluate from the point of view of a "conservative". I make sure that what I mean is what a reasonable person would understand after reading something I've written. That's very important.

Do not, and I repeat, do not assume that I am saying things that I do not say - and I really don't have to answer to you, it is not my obligation to answer to your petty attacks, but because I do carry a spirit of debate, and I even care about trying to get through your thick skull, I will debate, respond, and address the issues you feebly comment on.

Odd then - that Jennifer had the exact same interpretation of Doug's writing the last couple weeks that I did, yet Doug blames me for applying some "mischaracterizations".

Odd, again, that he continues to comment on my blog (and is quite welcome to do so, always has been) and claims some "spirit of debate", when he bans all contradictory viewpoints from his blog... defining it as "trolling", when we all know it's anything but trolling.

And so now.. he's got this new blog, and I don't care. Doug's "Political Pistachio" is where he references me as "a particular liberal blogger" and dishonestly paraphrases my writing. That's where the real cowardice exists.

If he wants to stop writing in "sweeping generalizations" - then great. I'd love to see it, because of course, in my estimation the conservative ideology is morally bankrupt and to see him actually articulate in specifics would be grand.

Doug has never been able to make a convincing argument on just about anything. Somehow I don't think he's suddenly going to discover how to say what he means.

I have well thought out views on virtually every issue. I have a well thought out views on any issue that I haven't even thought about. It's because I apply the philosophy of Moral Pluralism to any issue.

Dan was right. That essay was probably the best I've ever written.