From time to time, a comment by one of y’all causes me to comment at some length, and I decide to make it a separate post. This is one of those times.
A modest Everyman who calls himself "john" had this to say back on this post:
Well bud, I think the votes are in. Like I keep telling you, your views do not fit in our community…
First, let me clarify that I think he meant me, not bud. I’m less clear on what he meant by "our community." I think it’s an interesting question to pose to all: What, in the context of these discussions, does "our community" mean?
It’s like with editorials: WE can mean a number of things when we say
WE — it can be the editorial board, or rather the consensus thereof.
It can mean WE South Carolinians, or WE Americans, or WE who hold a
certain truth to be self-evident. When the meaning seems vague, I work with the writer to try to sharpen up what WE mean by the word.
So what does "our community" mean? South Carolinians? Americans? People
living in Zip Code 29201? Is it "our thing" in the Sicilian sense? Are you presuming to speak for the readers of
MY blog? If so, you have to deal with the fact that the READERS of the
blog and the people who regularly comment — perhaps I should have
emphasized REGULARLY there — are almost certainly different groups, in
terms of prevailing views on this and other issues. Of course, there’s no way to
establish whether that’s the case or not (beyond the anecdotal evidence
of all the nice people who say they read my blog but don’t want to
comment because they don’t want to mix it up with you ruffians — the
wimps); it’s just that my experience causes me to doubt that those who push themselves to the fore are representative.
To give you a stark example… back in the fall of 2001, when the
consensus in this country was strongly in favor of toppling the
Taliban, a majority (or a very large percentage, anyway; we didn’t keep
count) of the letters we received for awhile there were AGAINST
military action in Afghanistan. People who were FOR the action — the
overwhelming majority — saw no need to write letters, because there
was no argument to be made. That is, until they saw some of the
anti-war letters we were running. Then they weighed in in response.
Never for one moment was I fooled into thinking the antiwar letters represented a majority of Americans, or South Carolinians, or readers of The State.
A blog, which its more or less instantaneous interactivity and
reinforcement (positive and negative), has a tendency to run off in one
direction or another very quickly, with moderate views quickly
intimidated into silence (people of moderate temperament generally have
better things to do with their time, or so they quickly decide — again, the wimps). There are a few brave moderates who hang in there with us, until they
can’t stand it, and go away for awhile. Certain other types are with us
always.
Anyway, I’m getting far afield: Within the context of these discussions, what does "our community" mean?
Related Posts
Claiming that someone is “not of our community” was just an attempt to dismiss their views without debating.
It’s like calling someone a “nativist”, “xenophobe”, “homophobe”, or some other pseudo-medical or pseudo-psycological term to insinuate that they are emotionally deranged.
Dear Bud,
I think what I meant by “we” was either in the way that you used it to open your “Hey Lindsey” piece (“We knew Buddy Witherspoon…”) or in the purely “nativist” sense. I’ll let you decide since you have the superior talent for words. Thanks for not being a snob yourself, Bud (reference to your humble everyman comment).
I’m confused. Who’s Bud? Because I’ve always wondered who bud is, even though I now know he was once the chairman of the Irmo High Chess Club.
Here we have Bud, bud and Buddy, and that’s pretty muddy to me.
By contrast, “your views do not fit in our community” seems pretty clear to me. Another way of saying the same thing: “WE don’t agree with you, Mr. Warthen,” meaning the speaker is member of the clique that believes it decides such things. Lee and John have it right.
I’m curious, though. Is the editorial “we” different? Does that “we” mean the politically correct or the editorial board or the best self of the writer that wrote the sentence containing the “we”?
When I’ve used it, I’ve thought of it as my best self.
OK, that last post cracked me up. Thank you p.m.
Weren’t we all told that it depends on what the word “is” is?
In any case, I think the context in which Brad used the word ‘we’ tells you everything you need to know about exactly who the ‘we’ is that he’s talking to/about. It is the elite ‘we’ of which he considers himself a card-carrying member ~ and quite an important one at that. It’s the elite, leftist/socialist condescending and arrogant ‘we’ that knows better than the great unwashed ~ that huge population of rubes that aren’t like the ‘we’ and who aren’t sophisticated enough to understand why this country needs liquid borders and amnesty programs for law breakers. It is the snippy, dismissive ‘we’ that gets to call people nativists and other demeaning little names whenever debate is just too difficult and the other side is wrong and not worth the effort.
THAT ‘we’ is the ‘we’ Brad means.
The ugly ‘we’.
David
From what I’ve read lately, Wart Hen’s blog seems to be thinly disguised masochism.
“Hurt me! Make me bleed! But first: here’s something else I think that will cause rational people to mercilessly tear me into pieces.”
I never thought anyone associated with “Der Staat” could be the source of so much comedy!
Great work, y’all!
I certainly don’t hold views similar to most of you bloggers, but I consider them part of the community. We can either waste time throwing things at each other, or we can decide to work on whatever we can agree on. This state has enough problems that we don’t need to expend what energy we have fighting each other.
Nice sentiment Karen. Unfortunately it won’t work, because
-Firstly, we don’t agree about much.
-Secondly, even for the things that we DO agree on, “working together” to a liberal usually means that conservatives must abandon their principles and meet liberals on the left ~ Rarely will a liberal meet a conservative in the center to work with him.
So, how’s your throwing arm?
I mean really? Is there really any alternative to what we’re doing now ~ simply sticking by your guns and attempting to show how your position is the right one? Many of the positions held at one end of the spectrum naturally exclude the opposite position. The liberal vision of an increasingly powerful and pervasive central government can’t exist simultaneously with the conservative view of limited government, for instance. So…
Pass me a rock. David
By the way Karen, if you feel my thinking about not cooperating but sticking to and defending ones’ positions is fatalistic and that nothing will ever get done or solved, I think you’re wrong. I think plenty is getting done and will continue to under my idea: Many of the wrong things. You should be happy because your side ~ the liberal side ~ is winning. Consider:
-We are going to elect a new president (either one) this year who will in one fell swoop hugely advance the crazed environmental agenda by inaugurating the whacko cap and trade scheme which is going to increase government control over the economy and significantly reduce freedoms presently enjoyed by americans. You should be rejoicing. Problem solved right?
-Whichever of these clowns is elected will amost certainly sign some form of amnesty bill for illegal aliens within 4 years…and weaken the borders. Lindsey Graham with his famous little smirk will hand him the pen. Another problem solved. Rejoice! You win!
-Obama has now begun talking about the “UNDER” insured as well as the “UN” insured. His intent is clearly to enact universal healthcare. McCain will likely do t too if he gets a chance. Another problem solved. Another liberal score!
-Obama has promised to raise taxes. McCain has not, but his environmental excursions will amount to tax increases which broadly increase the scope and power of government. More money for liberal programs…again you should rejoice.
The way I see it, you don’t have much of anything to gripe about, and you certainly don’t need conservatives to work with you. You’re winning. Enjoy it. Screw us. Why pay any attention to our bleating, pissing and moaning? David
Karen,
I once commented fairly regularly on this blog and enjoyed folks like Herb Brasher who weren’t afraid to admit that their world view wasn’t the only one possible and who really seemed to listen and learn from the discussion.
For a time I had high hopes that the blog might generate some common ground. I thought this forum might allow good people with differing views to make their best arguments to one another, and that even if no minds were changed that some respect would be generated.
Unfortunately, the opposite has happened. The blog has become an echo chamber for folks who enjoy hearing the sound of their own keyboard. I still read it occasionally because I enjoy Brad’s writing, but I often skip the commentary because it’s so predictable. Instead of becoming a space where we could check our partisan guns at the door and really discuss issues thoughtfully, the preferred weapon here is the flamethrower. There’s no reason to converse with someone like Lee. He’s made up his mind, he knows he’s right and a decade or two ago he probably worked on a project that proves he’s right.
Interacting with someone like him is useless because there’s no chance to communicate. Lee strives for that utopia where government stops stealing his money and gets out of the business of providing education, health care, pensions etc.
And while all of us believe in the power of the individual, most of us recognize the need for an effective government for matters in addition to national defense. Lee doesn’t happen to be in that latter group. And while I certainly respect his opinion, it is way out of the mainstream. Unfortunately, on this blog, his lonely, toxic view of the world is the mainstream; which is why, I suspect, so few people bother to comment.
Paul is hilarious. He speaks of some high-minded utopia, then goes on to bash someone he clearly disagrees with. Paul- you are the classic liberal hyporcrite. Thanks for giving us an example of irony that would have made Oedipus proud.
Yeah John,
and look at the length of Pauls’ post! Seems to me like he’s found a comfy seat in the echo chamber and really sort of likes the sound of his own keyboard as much as anyone he criticizes.
You see? It’s quite alright when HE takes a strident tone and tells Karen to disregard Lee. You, me and the other ‘little’ people are the ones Paul doesn’t approve of when we’re strident. Ain’t it grand?
Wonder who elected Paul hall monitor? David
By the way John, I hadn’t noticed Paul was gone. Had you?
So much for the wonderful contributions he was making towards elevating the quality and content of our discussions. I don’t know that anyone realized he was gone. David
Brad,
You might want to check out Clay Shirky’s writings about social software.
http://shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html
http://shirky.com/writings/group_user.html
If you want to build a community (the unparty?), then your blog requires more carrots and sticks than you currently provide.
As a first step, you might want to enable Karen McLeod, Paul DeMarco, and Gordon Hirsch to be superusers who can delete junk comments — where they decide what’s junk.
Regards,
Michael Rodgers
Columbia, SC
Heil, Herr Michael.
Sounds like you have the prescription for a chorus of yes men, but I don’t think even the three people you mentioned agree on everything, or that you could name three people who agree on everything, or even three people who agree with everything they hear from Mr. Warthen.
How’s the flag flying?
Paul, Who reads Lee except for comic relief? If we can’t agree on abortion, can we least agree that roads should be repaired and paved as necessary? And if we can’t agree on welfare, can we at least agree that deteriorating property that’s becoming a stopping place for drug dealers, or even a rat condo, should be either improved or torn down? Can we agree that we need people to man our prisons, and enough police and firemen to enable them to do their jobs?
Karen, Karen, Karen,
You intellectual giant you.
lol
Paul,
In case you do look at the comments on this one, my thanks for your commendation. It is much more I (and I think many others) that owe our thanks to you for your comments, and this blog has been all the poorer since you left off.
In addition, I think you’ve expressed the dismay that a lot of us have when truth is held hostage to ideology. Some folks just don’t get the fact that one might be a “liberal” on one issue, and “conservative” on another (useless terms, really, but they are the ones a lot of people use, of course), because truth is truth, no matter who decides to align with it.
I don’t fault Brad too much for allowing the ideologues to pretty much take over the blog; though it perhaps would be useful if he could separate the anonymous from those who use their names, and then we’d perhaps have much less trash to have to filter through. But it would also separate out thinking folks like Uncle Elmer and even the arch-super-sarcastic-skeptic Captain A, though both haven’t written much lately.
Like Karen, I look for the author first, and then I know what I can avoid as a waste of time.
Even when traveling, I like to check in Brad’s blog from time to time to get the local news and often a good comment or two on what is going on nationally.
If only we could get him off of this voluntary speed limit kick.
Oh, and I forgot to mention Phillip. Always a good read, and on the other side of the political spectrum, Mike Cakora. I owe a debt to both of them and a few others like them. Reading comments from thinking folks is an education in itself.
Oops, there’s not only Phillip, but Bud as well. Oh well, I guess the anonymous thing doesn’t work. Have to figure something else out.
But, I mean blogs like getreligion.org are pretty ruthless in eliminating the attackers, ideologues, and off-topic commenters (which would include me at times), but maybe that’s because of the specialized blog purpose. I don’t know.
Keep your mind closed, Herb.
Filter out any new facts which might force you to evaluate your old belief system.
Avoid new ideas. Hide in a circle of like-minded friends.
Remain irrelevant to solving the problems.
Paul and Herb sure are sore for not being able to keep up with the conversation libertarians and conservatives are having.
We invite you to join us. Just don’t try to pass off socialist dogma as facts.